No, I understood that from the get go. The problem is that you are deciding that YOU know better than the experts in these various fields of study. You are comfortable with demanding that people switch to "god did it" as the answer, regardless of those who have been studying this their full lifetimes. Please remember that nothing that science is finding out proves your god doesn't exist. So, why are you so strongly opposed to learning how this universe works?
There is a new paper that suggests that the universe could start contracting within the next 100 million years (fairly quick on a cosmological scale). If the universe contracts back down to a singularity, it could cause another Big Bang and create another universe. This may be a normal cycle that has been going on infinitely.
Well, the point was that you do strongly advocate for the "god did it" answer to various questions - even though there is no evidence of that.
Yes, I do advocate that. There is plenty of evidence if you only look around. We live in a great big beautiful world and you don't have a clue how it got here. The universe is something when there could have been nothing. How and why did this happen?
Your logic is that you don't understand the universe, therefore, God did it. That is not logic that I can even slightly accept. For one thing, it seems to rely on the premise that humans know ALL causes except for what God did. Therefor, if we don't understand it, then it must be what God did!! How could that POSSIBLY make sense?
I'm not presenting the argument that "god did it". My argument is basically one from first cause. All things that we observe in the Universe has a cause. The first cause is noncontingent. Everything else in the Universe is contingent. This is the fundamental principle of causality. We observe it all around us in nature as a law. Science is trying to reach beyond those laws, but can't because that's where the first cause is.
In this case I suggest everyone is speculating since no one knows definitively. The how I mentioned is as possible as the idea of a godhead. If you can prove me wrong, please go ahead.
That is a statement of faith no more supportable than "god did it". The only barrier to contingency reaching back beyond the BB is one of instruments. So far they have "seen" back to a small fraction of a second after the BB. Satellites are improving vastly as is their ability to measure and return information to earth. It is a matter of time until we know what caused the BB and what existed before.
One theory (arguably proven and certainly not disproven) as to the nature of the universe is that OURS sprang from another in another dimension, now theoretically counted to be up to 11. Another example of the almost infinite number of variables.
Science has proven that the material we recognise in the universe were produced AFTER the BB when previously unassociated matter and energy were formed by the huge forces produced by the BB. So there were no hydrogen, no elements, and probably just forces. String theory considers this and mentions vibrations which activated the forces and caused an imbalance in the status quo.
You don't think the almost infinite assemblages of the materials in the universe cause its nature? You don't think the Large Hadron Collider has not created new matter by both fusion and splitting known material? Yeah. OK. scientists are proving you wrong while you are praying to something you can't prove exists.
How did this "infinite assemblage of materials in the universe" come into existence, and why? How was life created? No, scientists are not proving me wrong. Some have been desperately trying, but many others have already realized that science does not and can not have all the answers. The universe has a divine creator.
Not yet. And their motive is not to disprove your theory. They do it to prove the truth which I don't detect in your efforts to find the truth. You have just kept repeating your story. Of course you can believe in Peter Rabbit if you want, but when your fellow savants start messing about in other people's politics that affect everyone, and telling people off for not sharing your views, and not giving any acknowledgement to their arguments, I know where I can find a valuable discussion.
What are you talking about? I haven't "messed" with anyone's politics. Are you really that fragile that you can't tolerate hearing opposing views?
Two different issues. Are you then going to stop poking your nose into the subjugation of women's rights to a free choice and a mind of her own? The other subject, if I didn't tolerate other views, you would be ignored by now. If you want to discuss what happened before the BB, and we speculate on the possible science that might go some way to explain it, and all you can do is repeat "god did it", you could do worse than do some reading so you can offer more than a single repetitive idea.
Abortion is not a women only issue. Your own single repetitive answer is science will explain everything. “The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” - Albert Einstein “There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls.” - Max Planck
I have over the course of this and other vibversations mentioned multiple dimensions, string theory, time and almost infinite variables. You have merely said "god did it". So I can only conclude that you either don't know what science is doing or prefer to ignore it. And not to change the subject, abortion is a private individual issue which is not the business of any legislative body to meddle in. How about state decree that all men have reversible vascectomies? Think on. Of you want to state that God did it, first prove there is a God. Then that someone was there to record his 6 days of creation. As throughout all history, the hard questions are answered by "God did it". You'll have to do better if you want to convince intelligent people who are looking for the truth.
Are you saying energy (all energy is associated with motion which requires a "mover" -- cause and effect principle) always existed? What objective evidence supports that?
I've never said science should be ignored, never once. You'll have to do better than that. I've never said legislative bodies should meddle in the issue of abortion, never once. You'll have to do better than that. Intelligent people already know the truth, I quoted two for you. You'll have to do better than that.
Faith based speculation. Assuming science manages to reach beyond the origin of our Universe's beginning you only push the question back again. How did that which exist come into existence? This is why the first cause argument is the best one made. A non-contingent being isn't contingent on the existence of matter/energy for its Being. It simply is. Given our limitations being determined by what we can observe in our Universe we'll never be able to discover what that Being is -- but we can give it a name -- I prefer to call it God.
The problem is most likely the limitations of language and how we have learned to think. Because a question can be formed does not mean that it makes sense or can be answered. In other words, the response to what existed before could just as well be "the pre-big bang universe".
