I stated that BB singularity (if it happened) does no harm to my theology but you have yet to demonstrate there was a singularity.
If, rather than snipping sentences arbitrarily out of context, you actually responded relevantly to the comment I was making, do you not think that the discussion would progress more positively? As the sentence you have snipped and ignored in the relevant paragraph indicates -
Perhaps you would care to explain how you imagine there was a 'before' when there is no means of locating reference points for the coordinate system we call time? - I was endeavouring to get to grips with your apparent inability to understand that talking about time before the singularity is meaningless.
A singularity is a possible consequence of BB cosmology, but I am more than ready to acknowledge that future understanding may change our knowledge of the conditions that led to the beginnings of our part of the Universe/Multiverse. If a singularity is not a possible consequence of *this cosmology, perhaps you would care to explain why it isn't and what is, given that you have invoked BB cosmology and the Bible as being in agreement with each other?
As noted earlier, Hawking vacillates on that concept as do other scientists. Do you have evidence that these real scientists do not have? Can you demonstrate singularity via the scientific method?
I have the inferences drawn from Einsteinian physics and the evidence that supports those inferences. Currently*the general consensus amongst cosmologists is that our part of the Universe/Multiverse probably began with a singularity. At present, however, we cannot be certain that a singularity is the only possible origin of our part of the Universe/Multiverse, but the theory is at least supported by the available evidence, which seems to be more than you can say for your origins' hypothesis.
I wasn’t with God “in the beginning†– the details of His creative power remain outside of the discovery of current scientific methods...
So that leaves you free to make up whatever you like?
...similar to your "energy potential" that has always existed "in one form or another".
Please remember that 'always' is in this instance simply a shorthand way of describing a state in which the time coordinate is meaningless.
Are you still working on the science required to prove that notion?
It is an hypothesis based on the implications of BB cosmology; it may not be correct, but as you have done nothing to address it in any meaningful way I see no need to justify it as an hypothesis any further than this.
Your something (the Universe) that came from nothing remains illogical.
And your continual misrepresentation of what I am hypothesising is what, exactly? And when it comes to illogicality, supposing that an invisible, intangible mind, evidence for whose existence is at best vague and impossible to pin down, created something out of nothing seems to place you in the position of critiquing a position that, in the terms you use, is exactly the same as your own.
The fact remains - those who can only present unicorns and teapots as a defense against God (that be you) are self-relegated to the ‘hack’ category.
And presenting your unsupported assertion that your opinion amounts to fact relegates you to what category? May I point out again that, whatever the limitations of the points I have made that you refer to, they seem to remain beyond your abilities to address with reasoned counter argument.
The only ‘problem’ remains the ‘proof’ that it ever happened. Where does that leave you?
The Big Bang singularity is a point of zero volume, but very high mass, which makes the density infinite. This singularity contained all of the matter and energy in the Universe. The initial moment of the cyclopean explosion very well remains a mystery — however, astronomers and physicists believe that after the tiniest fraction of a second, the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force separated, which probably caused the Universe to begin inflating. ( PhysLink.com)
It appears to leave me in the position of the comment you have referenced, i.e. that the BB singularity is an hypothesised consequence of Einsteinian physics and BB cosmology, but we are as yet unable to describe the physics inherent in it. May I return to the remainder of the paragraph you are responding to that you have chosen to snip and ignore and ask again that, granting*your assumption for the sake of argument that before the BB there was God who created the Universe, is it within the bounds of possibility, in your opinion, that God 'used' a singularity to create our part of the Universe/Multiverse and thereafter allowed creation to proceed naturalistically and, if not, why not?
Judeo-Christian cosmology presents the truth that the Creator-God has always existed. *I agree with Hawking---
“science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God.â€
Where does that leave you?
It leaves me pointing out that your assertion as to what constitutes 'the truth' is unsupported and that Hawking has changed his mind, as I showed you.
Can you appeal to your imaginary friend - the pink unicorn? ;)
I do not suggest that pink unicorns either exist or, if they do, that they have created anything.
You have come full circle or you are simply going in circles. You are back to your appeal to pink unicorns and those who can only present unicorns as a defense against God are self-relegated to the ‘hack’ category.
Perhaps you can tell us again why your appeal to one imaginary supernatural deity is, in and of itself, any more meaningful than appealing to another? What makes your version of God preferable to Odin, Zeus, Amun or any other imaginary deity? What makes any version of a supernatural deity a more valid hypothesis than appealing to, say, an alien technology from a highly advanced and distant future?
Why indeed? It is self-explanatory. Your “dammed lake†didn’t float – did it? Do you have anything better or more damming?
'Self-explanatory' seems to be a phrase you use whenever you wish to dismiss any argument or point you are unable to address with reasoned argument. If you fail to understand the analogy offered to you to illustrate the idea of an energy potential, perhaps you would like to explain the difficulties you are having with it and I will do my best to provide one more suited to your needs.
Again you have not proven the “Multiverse†expanded from a singularity – have you?
It's an hypothesis that may or may not be shown to have substance to it. May I also point out that you have failed to prove your own origins' hypothesis as well, so where does that leave you? At least the BB singularity is supported by some evidence that we can point to - the CMBR, *fluctuations in the CMBR, large-scale homogeneity of the Universe, large-scale structure of the Universe, *abundance of light elements, expansion of the Universe, evolution of galaxies, age of stars, etc. I would be pleased to read your account for these phenomena that better explains the consequences of what we observe.
And the consensus on this thread thus far is the fact that the Bible conveys the concept of a universe that had a beginning and 'in the beginning' God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created? You have presented nothing to defeat that revealed truth. Report back when you can.
It is not my requirement to do anything more than point out that claims to 'revealed truth' remain unconvincing if simply asserted to be such. The Sacred Vedas offer the 'revealed truth' that Lord Brahma recreates the Universe in its entirety every four or so billion years. Why should I prefer your version of 'revealed truth' to this one?
*
And may I suggest once again that you*make some progress with supporting the substance of your assertion that is relevant to this thread, i.e. that the phrase 'stretched out' as used in the Bible corresponds directly with the currently held theory that our part of the Universe/Multiverse expanded and is countinuing to expand from a singularity?
