Pretty much everything in Genesis is inconsistent with what we know about the origin and evolution of our Universe leading our Solar System and our planet, and then to Life as we know it. You can twist individual statements to vaguely match some aspects of known cosmology, but it requires quite a stretch to get anything convincing, let alone 'prove' the writer(s) knew anything about the nature and origin of our own planet, let alone any greater reality.

What did you expect from an idiot?

Science is natural and part of nature is the human ability to make shit up. There is no difference between the gullibility of the Ancient Egyptians falsely believing the sun was a god and your gullibility in your emotional desire to want your own pet deity to be real. The only difference is that yours is a religion waiting to become part of the graveyard of myth. The only difference between a religion and a myth is time.

God/s/god/deity/super natural/ entities are all human invented superstitions, including yours. It is not our baggage that you simply do not want to face that.

That would be "beginning" not "bigining".

But while we are on the subject, what evidence is there for time and the universe having a beginning ? Source other than the bible please ?

Going back to the BB. From what you have said,
It seems that you believe the universe was caused
By nothing. Is this correct?
Correct me if I am wrong ?

Time would only have a beginning in Minkowski space if that is what you are talking about. Current evidence is that Minkowski space does not apply.

If your god has no beginning or end then it is stuck in a time loop. So?

Given the things you have said about science so far I can make it easy for you. You do not have to ask if you are correct. Just assume everything you say is wrong and it will save a lot of bandwidth.

As things do not have to have causes, you will first have to establish that a cause was needed before you can ask that question.

Lesson in logic.

It is not illogical for things to happened without a cause. ONLY if you assume without evidence that things must have a cause is a thing without a cause illogical. Your assumption is your choice.

That you credit observation for a presumption is meaningless. DESPITE the bible people used to observe spontanious generation of life all the time. No one found this contradictory to Genesis even though the hand of god was not seen in a pile of shit.

lol I've written smarter "A.I." programs in my highschool class in Turring.  And believe me, the I did not stand for intelligence.  hehe.

Well, lately Bob has been on here less and less.  Let me give you an analogy of your argument.  Your level of inquiry equates to a child pointing out that the car goes "Vrummmmm" in an argument for green fuel impacting horse power.

Now, I will try and answer some well formulated questions if you want.  I'm not going to enjoy it, but I'll give it a good shot.

My opinion on the cause of the B.B. is hardly relevant, but my best description on the cause would be !@#$KJ!@.  That's the best definition anyone on this side of the Big Bang can give you.  If anyone gets specific about conditions prior to, they are completely full of shit.  

Further more, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox says nothing about quantum mechanics having a cause.  Entanglement is a very difficult and poorly understood concept.  I'm going to try and break it down and try to explain it in plain English.

Basically it goes like this.  Because quantum mechanics says that any given experiment's results are unpredictable.  Any one set of particles are in an unknown state until observed.  Think of it like having a closed box with two balls inside.  You don't know what colour the balls are until you open the box.  What the paradox implies is that if you half the box without opening it, and take one half in one room, and the second in a different room.  Assuming you understand the equation governing your results, for example that the balls must be blue and red, as soon as you find out the colour of one ball, the other becomes the other colour according to quantum mechanics. 

Now, the paradox says, it is much more sensible to assume that the pair of particles are governed by a set of hidden variables, rather then to assume that there is faster then light communication between the particles.  For example, if you had shoes instead of balls, the hidden variables would be the fact that shoes always come in left/right pairs.  So one shouldn't be surprised to find a left shoe in one box and a right shoe in the other.  

Enter Bell's inequality.  This is where we step into edumacation (sic) territory.  Suffice it to say that an experiment was designed to show that quantum mechanics is the explanation that makes sense, not the hidden variable theory.  

In other words, there is some sort of unknown instantaneous communication between sets of particles.  

The paradox you cited without understanding was a thought experiment designed to show that quantum mechanics is flawed because it implies FTL communication, which goes against the theory of relativity.  It was also experimentally shown to be the incorrect conclusion.  I'm not sure why you brought it up, or how that supports any point that you attempted to make. 

'Without beginning or end' does NOT imply 'outside of time'. At most it suggests 'unchanging', but even that is not a necessary implication.

Time as we know it may or may not have a beginning, that varies with the particular theory.

you're an empiricist. What a relief. Could you please explain to us what caused bacterial DNA to exist inside the mitochondria of all the cells of Jim that was not a process of symbiotic evolution. 

Not to go too far off of topic, but wasn't there some problems with this format as well that the shroedingers cat thought experiment was meant to showcase, or am I misunderstanding?

I'm just wondering what point you want to make here?

Still waiting for you to explain the paradox.

Unless you are playing a stupid game on the difference between imply and infer you are simply repeating what everyone has told you is false. There is no "law" of cause and effect. There is no cause and effect in quantum mechanics.

There are fools and there are stubborn fools. You are in the latter category.

Would you like to explain what you believe
has no cause?

There is nothing to explain and it is not a belief. Quantum mechanics fully explains all the phenomena which underlie the observable world except for gravity -- Higgs Boson discovery will likely change that as may other things. Quantum mechanics does not have causation.

The explanations are correct. There is no causation needed. Therefore there is no causation.

Marty

A satanic apologist? That's amusing. And just to clarify, you are friends with him to this day lol.

I too am friends with Satanists. Rex Church (MI6, Former COS as of 01/2012. Order of Trapezoid. 

Only a few of them are actually "nice" people so you are lucky. And if you spoke with a LaVeyian/COS satanist then you guys are BOTH athiest (agnostic) so no wonder you were getting along.

Can I get a duh anybody?

LaVeyian satanists are'nt really satanists. They are like the weak atheists of the "atheist" crowd, kind of looked at as jokes.

Seitians are a little more serious and the Golden Dawn is very serious.

I probably know more about satanism then your satanic friend. But given he was a theistic satanist then he was obviously not LaVeyian.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I read Bob & Ktulu's posts, and I'm pleased I understand them.

Then I read the theists posts and it becomes blatantly obvious that they don't and can't understand.

Much like how you can't invent a car without first inventing the wheel, an engine, and metalworking; you can't understand quantum mechanics, gravity, time, and space without first aquiring a bare minimum of a high school level of education in the sciences.

They just don't have the tools for such conversations.

Sure.

Whenever an electron moves from a higher energy state, to a lower energy state, some number of photons is given off.

As matter condensed from the giant sea of "stuff", electrons and protons combined to form atomic hydrogen.  Those electrons gave off photons.  As atomic hydrogen combined to form molecular hydrogen, that gave off photons.

If you're interested, check out some early cosmologies and pay particular attention to "The Dark Ages".

Oh, you mean where is all that explained in the Bible!

It isn't.  The Bible isn't a science text.  If you want to study Science, there are schools for that.  If you want to study G-d, contact your local Rabbi.

Hey there, long time no see.  How are you these days?

Greets.

Proper names are never made possessive.  The "ךְ" (possessive ending suffix letter ...) on the end of "יִשְׁעֵ" proves that it isn't the proper name "Jesus" since "Jesus" wouldn't be made possessive as a proper name.  That the vowel point on the ayin is wrong doesn't help your argument either.  The final nail in the bogus argument is that the exact same word is used throughout the Tanakh to mean "my salvation" or "your salvation" or something else involving "salvation".

In no instances was it means "your Jesus".  Because proper names are never made possessive ...

Have your rabbi examine it in Hebrew .

Behold (thy YESHUA[ Jesus] cometh

; behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him.

His
Him

The context Imply a proper name.
Salvation is a person and not a thing or
A event.

He comes :
His reward is
With Him
His work
Before Him

Christianity.