Science Proves Creation

[Bradskii]

This reminds me of a turtle analogy.

In your imaginary universe, your cubes extend infinitely. Please explain what those cubes are expanding into.

Infinity.

 

[Bradskii]

The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity

The part you are missing, and it's not possible to picture it, is that that's all there was. There wasn't a point in something. There wasn't something outside the point. It didn't expand into something.

 

[Bradskii]

So in other words you can't. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you misunderstood what I said.

What you said is still there. You said that the universe has a center. I asked for evidence. You said you'd 'read a book'. 'Quote me' You said. So I did.

Maybe I misunderstood what you said; but I reject the notion that the universe popped up all over the place at once.

On what basis? Some version of 'common sense'? Why not do some actual studying instead. Read about it.

 

[Bradskii]

Proof?

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

The Big Bang Theory explains how the universe began.

www.space.com

'Around 13.7 billion years ago, everything in the entire universe was condensed in an infinitesimally small singularity, a point of infinite denseness and heat.'

 

[Hans Blaster]

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

The Big Bang Theory explains how the universe began.

www.space.com

'Around 13.7 billion years ago, everything in the entire universe was condensed in an infinitesimally small singularity, a point of infinite denseness and heat.'

That is, of course, before the Big Bang and seems to violate the principles of quantum mechanics, so physics makes it really hard to tell what exactly was going on then.

 

[Shemjaza]

The alteration of the period is virtually insignificant after it is divided by infinity.

Why?

By ignoring that states and effects are fundamentally changed by gravity and relatively your intuitions can't help but be wrong.

 

[FredVB]

The part you are missing, and it's not possible to picture it, is that that's all there was. There wasn't a point in something. There wasn't something outside the point. It didn't expand into something.

Science might not prove creation, but there was a beginning that is reliably shown. Exactly statements like this I respond to are statements without proof. There would be cause to something starting, like the universe, or there would be no reason, and it wouldn't happen. Necessary existence is never limited in any way, and is explanation for caused things to start.

 

[AdB]

Wait where did you show that science proves creation? All I see is some rambling about thermodynamics and a clear misunderstanding of the Big Bang. How does that "prove" a being created the universe?

The origin of the universe - short exercise

The origin of the universe What is the origin of the universe? Does it have a beginning or has it existed eternally? Can it be self-existent in the same way God is assumed to be self-existent? Or if it did have a beginning, what caused it to come into existence? And regardless if it has existed...

www.christianforums.com

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The part you are missing, and it's not possible to picture it, is that that's all there was. There wasn't a point in something. There wasn't something outside the point. It didn't expand into something.

Yes, calling it a point doesn't really do it justice - it was all there was and it might even have been infinite in extent...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Science might not prove creation, but there was a beginning that is reliably shown.

No; all we know is that we can trace it back no further than a very hot dense state beyond which our physics fails - and we know why it fails. But if (when?) we can fix the physics, we'll likely still reach a point earlier than which we can't probe for lack of information.

It's generally called 'the beginning' of the universe as shorthand for 'the beginning of the universe as we know it'.

 

[AV1611VET]

No; all we know is that we can trace it back ...

Only on paper.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Only on paper.

Using our best physical models, on paper or otherwise.

 

[durangodawood]

Only on paper.

There's digital versions of this combined observation and reasoning too.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's digital versions of this combined observation and reasoning too.

Oh, I know.

It takes a computer nowadays to keep all of science's lies straight.