The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Tassman]

First, I don't see what any of this has to do with your claim that quantum fields can exist in the absence of space-time. Are you now backing away from this claim?

Second, I agree that inflationary cosmology is now the dominant model. But this is not an alternative to the Big Bang. It is an addition to the Big Bang, and is commonly referred to as "inflationary Big Bang cosmology".

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstrac...ysRevD.27.2848

[Sparko]

Ice is water, it only takes time for the water to change form, its still water, and the same goes for all matter, its still matter, no matter what form it takes in time. Think about it.

Matter is "frozen energy" in a way. Energy can be converted to matter, but it takes time. And it has to happen in space. Matter cannot exist without space. or time.

The big bang tells us nothing of what caused or existed prior to the bang itself.

exactly. and it can't. That is why science stops there and speculation begins.

[JimL]

Matter is "frozen energy" in a way. Energy can be converted to matter, but it takes time. And it has to happen in space. Matter cannot exist without space. or time.

The conversion of energy to matter, or vice versa, takes place over time, but Matter/energy itself doesn't appear over time. And again, we know nothing about what exists outside of our observable spacetime, or whether or not space, time, or energy/matter exist there.

exactly. and it can't. That is why science stops there and speculation begins.

Exactly, so far science stops there, but reason does not. Claiming supernaturalism doesn't explain anything, it just acknowledges our ignorance.

[Sparko]

The conversion of energy to matter, or vice versa, takes place over time, but Matter/energy itself doesn't appear over time. And again, we know nothing about what exists outside of our observable spacetime, or whether or not space, time, or energy/matter exist there.

You keep making my argument for me. thanks.

We do know that our space and time started at the big bang. That at the singularity there was no space, no time, and no matter. Anything else is a guess scientifically.

Exactly, so far science stops there, but reason does not. Claiming supernaturalism doesn't explain anything, it just acknowledges our ignorance.

I don't claim "God" because we don't know what caused the big bang. I claim God because of many reasons. I have seen him act in my life, I believe the evidence for Jesus and the revelations in the bible. I believe the evidence for God is good and therefore I believe it.

God also explains how a singularity with no dimensions and no time can "suddenly" expand into the universe. And all you have are guesses and no scientific evidence to the contrary. You are not countering God with science. You are countering God with guesses.

[Kbertsche]

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstrac...ysRevD.27.2848

Velenkin's proposal above is highly speculative and by no means generally accepted. It proposes entirely new physics for which we have no experimental or observational evidence. (In our current formulations of quantum mechanics, tunneling requires the pre-existence of space-time. Vilenkin is hoping that he can formulate QM in a new way to avoid this, and thus avoid the implications of his earlier space-time theorems. But at present, this is just a hope.)

[JimL]

You keep making my argument for me. thanks.

You wish!

We do know that our space and time started at the big bang. That at the singularity there was no space, no time, and no matter. Anything else is a guess scientifically.

We don't know that space and time began at the big bang, remember, you don't know what is beyond our observable universe. Also the singularity is hypothetical, Cosmic inflation doesn't require a singularity.

I don't claim "God" because we don't know what caused the big bang. I claim God because of many reasons. I have seen him act in my life, I believe the evidence for Jesus and the revelations in the bible. I believe the evidence for God is good and therefore I believe it.

Yes, you simply believe in the supernatural because you read it in a book, and then you attribute that belief to events in your personal life. Thats fine, believe what you like, but you aren't going to convince reasoning people by unevidenced personal experiences or beliefs. I mean, you aren't going to convince me that someone walked on water, or that they thought the world into existence, because you read it in a book!

God also explains how a singularity with no dimensions and no time can "suddenly" expand into the universe.

Yeah, but thats only because with god you can claim anything without need of explanation, you just say "god did it."

And all you have are guesses and no scientific evidence to the contrary. You are not countering God with science. You are countering God with guesses.

God is naught but a guess, and its a guess that defies reason really. Ex nihilo nihil fit!

[Kbertsche]

We don't know that space and time began at the big bang, remember, you don't know what is beyond our observable universe. Also the singularity is hypothetical, Cosmic inflation doesn't require a singularity.

So far as I am aware, inflationary Big Bang cosmology ("cosmic inflation") still assumes a Big Bang singularity. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present and explain it.

[JimL]

So far as I am aware, inflationary Big Bang cosmology ("cosmic inflation") still assumes a Big Bang singularity. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present and explain it.

Every particular thing begins to exist, you began to exist, did you begin as a singularity? If you notice in your link, it says "the conjectured singularity."

[Sparko]

You wish!

We don't know that space and time began at the big bang, remember, you don't know what is beyond our observable universe. Also the singularity is hypothetical, Cosmic inflation doesn't require a singularity.

and cosmic inflation is unprovable. it is a guess. We do know that space and time began at the big bang actually. Whether there was some other universe with it's own space and time previous is possible, but it is just a guess and pushes the problem back one level. You can't have an infinite regress. and guessing what was prior to the big bang is just guessing.

Yes, you simply believe in the supernatural because you read it in a book, and then you attribute that belief to events in your personal life. Thats fine, believe what you like, but you aren't going to convince reasoning people by unevidenced personal experiences or beliefs. I mean, you aren't going to convince me that someone walked on water, or that they thought the world into existence, because you read it in a book!

No actually. I told you why, but thanks for that feeble attempt at mind reading.

[Kbertsche]

Every particular thing begins to exist, you began to exist, did you begin as a singularity?

The question is whether or not the current standard model of cosmology, with the addition of cosmic inflation, is still built on the assumption of a Big Bang singularity. I believe that it is, as supported by the Wikipedia article on cosmic inflation. You claim that it is not. Can you back up your claim?

This is a question about our current cosmological theories. Questions about my own personal beginning have nothing to do with this cosmological question.

[JimL]

The question is whether or not the current standard model of cosmology, with the addition of cosmic inflation, is still built on the assumption of a Big Bang singularity. I believe that it is, as supported by the Wikipedia article on cosmic inflation. You claim that it is not. Can you back up your claim?

As cited in the article, the singularity itself is conjecture, its a mathematical starting point, not necessarily a real starting point, arrived at by tracing the expansion of the universe backwards in time. Cosmic inflation is about the expansion of spacetime, not the beginning of spacetime.

This is a question about our current cosmological theories. Questions about my own personal beginning have nothing to do with this cosmological question.

No, its just the best common sense analogy I could come up with.

[Tassman]

Velenkin's proposal above is highly speculative and by no means generally accepted. It proposes entirely new physics for which we have no experimental or observational evidence. (In our current formulations of quantum mechanics, tunneling requires the pre-existence of space-time. Vilenkin is hoping that he can formulate QM in a new way to avoid this, and thus avoid the implications of his earlier space-time theorems. But at present, this is just a hope.)

[Kbertsche]

As cited in the article, the singularity itself is conjecture, its a mathematical starting point, not necessarily a real starting point, arrived at by tracing the expansion of the universe backwards in time. Cosmic inflation is about the expansion of spacetime, not the beginning of spacetime.

Correct.

[Kbertsche]

Not quite. I would say that he is still in the process of trying to force the math, and the physics, to support his hypothesis.

The details of the Big Bang are not completely settled, of course. But the basic idea of a Big Bang is pretty well settled. It is referred to as the "standard model" of cosmology for good reason: there is a wealth of experimental and observational evidence which supports it.

[Tassman]

Not quite. I would say that he is still in the process of trying to force the math, and the physics, to support his hypothesis.

As always, science is a work in progress.

The details of the Big Bang are not completely settled, of course. But the basic idea of a Big Bang is pretty well settled. It is referred to as the "standard model" of cosmology for good reason: there is a wealth of experimental and observational evidence which supports it.

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth1.html