There was no "before" before the Big Bang

[Justatruthseeker]

You realize that even by the definitions you've given, here, Power and Energy are two entirely different things. Even if I were to grant the preposterous assertion that δυναμος refers to the modern definition of Power found in Physics textbooks, you would STILL be wrong to claim that Romans 1:20 talks about God living in a world of Energy.

That's certainly not "what every theorist believes." It's a Straw Man based on a common misconception about the Big Bang.

What's your point? Did someone here assert that they did?

Don't really care what "you" decide to grant.

http://biblehub.com/greek/1411.htm

δύναμις, εως, ἡ not δυναμος

dunamis: (miraculous) power, might, strength

Short Definition: might, power, marvelous works
Definition: (a) physical power, force, might, ability, efficacy, energy, meaning (b) plur: powerful deeds, deeds showing (physical) power, marvelous works."

What you choose to grant me doesn't really matter - accept the meanings or don't.

The rest is just your excuse to try to ignore what it means - because we are - are we not - talking about the invisible things of him - Power/Energy - that are discerned from the things made?????? It certainly isn't His divine nature - that's listed separately. It certainly is not His dominion or rule - the things made do not show that. You are left with no choice but to accept it, whether you want to or not. The rest is just excuses which when science advances enough to understand those things made - will be taken away one by one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, it doesn't.

Ostrich Theory???? Practice it often?

 

[Black Dog]

You were informed that by the very author of the Big Bang himself - a Theist. But I am sure you understood what he meant better than he did himself - right????

You keep making assertions that God started the Big Bang. I keep asking for you to produce evidence to support this assertion. You never do.

I'll try once more: Do you have any actual evidence to support the assertion that God started the Big Bang?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And so instead of accepting the truth - you will turn to futile speculations that violate your own scientific principles.

Romans 1:22 "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures."

Whether those futile speculations turn to Fairie Dust in cosmology or evolution, it's all the same.

You will continue to futilely speculate even when their theories are falsified. Attempt to defend those falsified theories so You can avoid having to accept the truth. All of you could care less what laboratory experiments say - as long as you can continue to ignore God and speculate Fairie Dust.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetry-fails-test-forcing-physics-seek-new-idea/

 

[Black Dog]

You use the term sunrise and sunset....as if the sun really rises and sets.
You don't look any smarter from a historical perspective by not updating
your language.

What does that have to do with anything? The people who wrote the bible literally believed the sun revolved around the earth, that's why it's in the bible.

 

[Black Dog]

You will continue to futilely speculate even when their theories are falsified. Attempt to defend those falsified theories so You can avoid having to accept the truth. All of you could care less what laboratory experiments say - as long as you can continue to ignore God and speculate Fairie Dust.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetry-fails-test-forcing-physics-seek-new-idea/

You really need to read and understand the articles you provide before commenting on them. They couldn't find the particles, that doesn't mean they don't exist. You should understand this as the same thing applies to your God.

Although using your logic on your God... Oh oh!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You keep making assertions that God started the Big Bang. I keep asking for you to produce evidence to support this assertion. You never do.

I'll try once more: Do you have any actual evidence to support the assertion that God started the Big Bang?

Do you have any He didn't? So you can't say He didn't can you - since according to Big Bang theory the cause is unexplainable. As a matter of fact the math breaks down completely at this "beginning", showing the mathmatical impossibility of it better than I ever could. You can call an error in theory a singularity if you want - but it's still an error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

"Both general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the earliest moments of the Big Bang, but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths."

And even violates quantum mechanics. Probably why you can't get General Relativity to agree with quantum physics.

"This is again according to general relativity without quantum mechanics, which forbids wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength."

It's a sign that you are missing something in your theory - not that it is a physical reality.

"Many theories in physics have mathematical singularities of one kind or another. Equations for these physical theories predict that the ball of mass of some quantity becomes infinite or increases without limit. This is generally a sign for a missing piece in the theory,"

What you are missing is continuing to treat the behavior and charge of single particles by the behavior and charge of clumps of matter. All of science is against this - yet you do so anyways. Treat a universe 99% plasma by those theories for clumps of matter - and then when those theories that are 98% correct in describing clumps of matter fail by 96% in describing the behavior of single particles - you try to sledgehammer it to fit anyways.

But then Plasma Physicists have only been trying to tell you this for the last 200+ years - but you still apply the wrong physics to plasma in space - despite the fact that not one single Plasma Physicist in any laboratory uses anything but particle physics and electromagnetic theory to describe plasma. But go ahead and ignore that too - won't be anything unusual. You require that 96% Fairie Dust because your theory is incomplete - because you ignore how plasma (99% of the universe) really behaves and refuse to apply the correct physics to the correct state of matter.

Don't even try to pretend you are following science, all you got is Fairie Dust. But then that's why all you can do is present ad-hominem attacks instead of any science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You really need to read and understand the articles you provide before commenting on them. They couldn't find the particles, that doesn't mean they don't exist. You should understand this as the same thing applies to your God.

Although using your logic on your God... Oh oh!

And when ether theories came up with 4 null results - why was it falsified instead of merely constrained????? And dark matter (Fairie Dust) has had 12 null results but is merely "constrained."

Yes - that seems like someone giving theories equal footing to me. NOT, sounds like people refusing to accept the results.

I already told you - He has been hidden since the beginning - only His invisible qualities observed in the things made can point to Him.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Saying there's no 'before' before the Big Bang to show there is no god is ultimately trying to dictate that gravity, a mechanism, is God. A mechanism, and not an agent.

Hawking put together a series of math that attempts to illustrate this. Some physicists thought it was genius, others thought it was ridiculous.
It's speculative, and saying that cosmology does not need an intelligent agency based on that is desperate at best. The origin of the cosmos is still very much a mystery by scientific standards.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell us what energy is????

 

[Black Dog]

I already told you - He has been hidden since the beginning - only His invisible qualities observed in the things made can point to Him.

And still no evidence. Could you please provide some evidence that invisible qualities observed in things point to God. Thank you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Saying there's no 'before' before the Big Bang to show there is no god is ultimately trying to dictate that gravity, a mechanism, is God. A mechanism, and not an agent.

Hawking put together a series of math that attempts to illustrate this. Some physicists thought it was genius, others thought it was ridiculous.
It's speculative, and saying that cosmology does not need an intelligent agency based on that is desperate at best. The origin of the cosmos is still very much a mystery by scientific standards.

Their own theories state that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - so can not have come about by the Big Bang - but must always have existed. Logical deduction demands this, not that I expect many to be logical. So claiming there was no "before" is ignoring their own science that energy existed "before" the Big Bang. Since the Big Bang is claimed to have happened everywhere at once - then energy was also everywhere.

So either all of our scientific beliefs about energy conservation are incorrect - despite fitting all experiments to date - or they are just making excuses to ignore that energy that must have existed prior to the Big Bang - since science believes it can neither be created nor destroyed.

Denials will now begin - despite the science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

"but cannot be created or destroyed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

"In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it transforms from one form to another,"

So now I got to ignore science to even consider their Fairie Dust beliefs.

 

[Black Dog]

Do you have any He didn't?

You are the one making the assertions, therefore you are the one who needs to provide the evidence.

I am in the default position, that there is no satisfactory evidence to prove God exists. It's the default position because you can't prove something doesn't exist. Just like the default position on Leprachauns is that there is no satisfactory evidence that they exist. Same with the Loch Ness monster, and the Pink Unicorns that live on the moon, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. By your logic all of these exist.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And still no evidence. Could you please provide some evidence that invisible qualities observed in things point to God. Thank you.

Please cite some that don't????

You don't understand what things are made of - so how can I cite evidence? Or do you - and just don't want to admit it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are the one making the assertions, therefore you are the one who needs to provide the evidence.

I am in the default position, that there is no satisfactory evidence to prove God exists. Just like the default position on Leprachauns is that they don't exist. Same with the Loch Ness monster, and the Pink Unicorns who live on the moon.

No - you are asserting there is no God - so it is up to you to prove your claim as well.

I am also in the default position, that there is no satisfactory evidence to prove God does not exist. If there was we wouldn't be debating it.

I say your math breaks down and declares the impossibility. You say it doesn't matter that your math can't explain a miracle. I say it does matter that it is a mathematical impossibility.

Your own science tells you your theory is missing an important part. You ask I accept Fairie Dust to ignore the real physics.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ore-the-big-bang.7916279/page-9#post-68850381

You ignore all that energy in the universe and then have to propose 96% Fairie Dust to explain all the energetic events you see.

But please - tell us all what energy is and I will tell you what God is????? You can't do it can you. So how can I tell you what God is????

 

[Aman777]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell us what energy is????

Energy is mass times the speed of light squared.

 

[Aman777]

Black Dog said: ↑
You keep making assertions that God started the Big Bang. I keep asking for you to produce evidence to support this assertion. You never do.

I'll try once more: Do you have any actual evidence to support the assertion that God started the Big Bang?

I do. God made the first firmament which He called Heaven on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:6-8
He made other HeavenS (plural) on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day Adam's Earth was made. Gen 2:4

One heaven made the 2nd Day PLUS other heavenS made on the 3rd Day equals God's Truth that we live in a Multiverse composed of several Heavens/Universes. The Europeans should soon announce the confirmation of this event which God told us thousands of years ago in Genesis. Amen?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Energy is mass times the speed of light squared.

No, mass times the speed of light squared is energy. Mass is a property of physical bodies and at high speeds or those individual particles they treat like clumps of matter mass comes from energy content - energy is not a property of mass, mass is a property of energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

"In physics, mass is a property of a physical body... For everyday objects and energies well-described by Newtonian physics, mass describes the amount of matter in an object. However, at very high speeds or for subatomic particles, special relativity shows that energy is an additional source of mass. Thus, any stationary body having mass has an equivalent amount of energy, and all forms of energy resist acceleration by a force and have gravitational attraction."

So in the end we are discussing energy in their claimed neutral universe in which they need 96% Fairie Dust to explain all the energetic events they see because they ignored 99% of it and how it behaves.

So in their simplistic world then, God is mass times the speed of light squared. That should suffice since it seemed to suffice for as an explanation of what energy was.

And we are still left asking what is energy? What is mass? Electricity? Magnetic or electric fields? Gravity? All unknowns without an answer.

And that also tells you why the dinosaurs and life was larger before mankind's creation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The dinosaurs were larger because:

"However, at very high speeds or for subatomic particles, special relativity shows that energy is an additional source of mass."

So in a universe increasing in acceleration - more mass over time making life smaller is the logical conclusion. Being what we understand about energy and acceleration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

"In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes."

And the only changes in speed is an increasing acceleration and increasing kinetic energy and increasing mass. So again - the further one goes back in time the less was the acceleration and the less kinetic energy or mass the earth had - and so life grew larger.

 

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Don't really care what "you" decide to grant.

http://biblehub.com/greek/1411.htm

What you choose to grant me doesn't really matter - accept the meanings or don't.

Neither the definition you provided, nor the far more extensive treatment provided by the LSJ Lexicon ( http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dunamis&la=greek#lexicon ) support your claim that the word δύναμις is intended to refer to kilogram meters squared per cubic second.

The rest is just your excuse to try to ignore what it means - because we are - are we not - talking about the invisible things of him - Power/Energy - that are discerned from the things made??????

Once again, even on the definitions which you provided, Power and Energy are not at all equivalent concepts. Conflating the two is obviously fallacious.

Ostrich Theory???? Practice it often?

Not at all. Please indicate where science has demonstrated that the universe "requires a beginning."

Saying there's no 'before' before the Big Bang to show there is no god is ultimately trying to dictate that gravity, a mechanism, is God.

No, it's really not. I don't think anyone is trying to say that if the concept "before the Big Bang" is nonsensical, it therefore follows that there is no God. Rather, the implication is that it is incoherent to assert that the universe was Created if there was never a time in which the universe did not exist. We're not trying to replace God with Gravity as Creator of the universe. We're saying that there is no good reason to think that the universe was Created.

Hawking put together a series of math that attempts to illustrate this. Some physicists thought it was genius, others thought it was ridiculous.

It's speculative, and saying that cosmology does not need an intelligent agency based on that is desperate at best. The origin of the cosmos is still very much a mystery by scientific standards.

It absolutely is! Professor Hawking would be the first person to admit as much. That doesn't give us leave to simply fill that gap in our knowledge with ad hoc explanations involving deity.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell us what energy is????

It rather depends on the context. Earlier, you quoted the Wikipedia article on Energy (physics). Of course, it seems that you rather intentionally cut your quote short, so here's what the article actually said:

"The 'ability of a system to perform work' is a common description, but it is difficult to give one single comprehensive definition of energy because of its many forms. For instance, in SI units, energy is measured in joules, and one joule is defined 'mechanically', being the energy transferred to an object by the mechanical work of moving it a distance of 1 metre against a force of 1 newton. However, there are many other definitions of energy, depending on the context, such as thermal energy, radiant energy, electromagnetic, nuclear, etc., where definitions are derived that are the most convenient."

Energy is mass times the speed of light squared.

No, that's an equivalence relation between matter and energy. It's not a definition of energy.

The dinosaurs were larger because:

"However, at very high speeds or for subatomic particles, special relativity shows that energy is an additional source of mass."

If this statement had been made on almost any other forum, I would have thought the author must be a Poe. Once again, your particular brand of ignorance fascinates me. I'd love to see the actual numbers you've worked up on this hypothesis, if you have them.