The single greatest mistake Christians make in Cosmology~!

You have not scientifically proven that the Big Bang (13.79 Ga) was not the beginning of the universe. Your words can seem to be authoritative to some gullible people. Although an idiot might think that you have proved something, I can see that your words are bold beyond science. I see through your phraseology.

I cannot scientifically prove that the Big Bang was the beginning of this universe.

You cannot scientifically prove that the Big Bang was not the beginning of this universe.

Perhaps you are willing to embrace the fact that, in all directions (panoramically), the near uniformity of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) strongly suggests that there was a Big Bang (a Big Bang that can easily be interpreted to be the beginning of the universe). You do not seem to be denying the reliability of that basic theory. Any Christian still has the freedom to embrace the near uniformity of the CMB while simultaneously claiming (without actually scientifically proving) that GENESIS 1:1 references the beginning of this universe.

GENESIS 1:1, "In the beginning GOD created the heavens...".

GENESIS 1:1 does reference the GENESIS 2:4 Universe. Suppose that the GENESIS 2:4 Universe is merely one bubble universe within a preexisting Multiverse. Even that scenario would not contradict the Bible. The GENESIS 1:1 words "In the beginning GOD created the heavens..." references the beginning of the GENESIS 2:4 universe. If the GENESIS 2:4 universe actually is merely a bubble universe (within a preexisting Multiverse), then so it is. And the GENESIS 1:1 phrase "In the beginning" could nevertheless be understood to be a reference to the beginning of the GENESIS 2:4 Universe rather than to any given beginning of the preexisting Multiverse.

You have taken nothing away from Christians who study all related facts and all related Bible Verses, and embrace / understand all related factors.

I pity the naive people who assume that none of your words have not gone beyond scientific proof.

And yet, I give you an A+ for evidently masquerading as somebody whose phraseology does not go beyond scientific proof. As a matter of fact, you are one of the finest at this. I tip my hat to you.

wow, all those scientists being so wrong, have you sent them this video? you could be in line for a Nobel prize.

Christians twist scientists' words to "prove" there is a god? Yawn! Now tell me something I don't know!

What he said was that, in the future, it may be within the power of science to identify what happened before the big bang. This is not the same as saying that it will be within the power of science to explain how the universe began. Quite on the contrary, the uploader postulates that the big bang is not a theory of the beginning of the universe, and that the universe indeed does not have a beginning.

Please explain. Regards.

So you postulate that 'some time in the future' when an explanation of Quantom Mec. is developed, we will then', understand how it is that the universe came into existance out of what it seem the most accepted true observation of unmattered inception?

@Christianjr4 I want to expand that question Dorpathan made to you: is Guth a believer? is Vilenkin a believer? is Hawking a believer? does Penrose now propose an eternal universe? And the answer is not because they are scientists, but rather because the ultimate begining thing is not a fact, and even if it was, as Guth believes it was, they still think it's possible to explain it through natural law. Guth's insights into this last thing are amazing.

@Dhorpatan sorry about the last comment, i made a mistake. it was aimed at Christianjr4.

@Christianjr4 and also, when you use a classical non-quantum theorem like BVG, you do arrive to that the singularity is unavoidable, precisely because you will never explain the singularity using GR. And like Dorpathan said, it is unavoidable because "you need physics other than inflation to explain what happens beyond the inflationary boundary" what the paper actually says. Do you get it now? Has any order arrived to your christian ideas about physics?

@Christianjr4 And you say i have not given quotes. Well, i do not quote, i reference papers, because quotemining is not my thing. I gave you the webpage of a science search engine (sciencedirect-com), and gave you a couple of keywords, recommended to watch topics, dates, and abstracts, and asked you to come back and tell me that it is stablished fact that the universe had an ultimate beginning. If you want to ignore this, fine, take your authoritative quotes and sleep well at night.

@Christianjr4 And let's try to explain what a singularity is. Is not a 'boundary', i wonder if you got this from WLC. Is a phenomenon that cannot be explained by current available theory. And what physicists mean when they say 'singularity is unavoidable' or 'is avoidable' is not whether the universe had or not and absolute time boundary, but whether or not you can 'solve' what happened at the singularity.

@Christianjr4 Whether it's a single universe, a multiverse, cyclic models or colliding universes, they still have generally an ultimate beginning. That's the common view today. I REALLY NEED YOU TO GIVE BACKUP TO THIS.

@Christianjr4 I don't know how to communicate to you that the universe began to expand but not to exist, and that is what that evidence show. And i also said before that Guth actually goes for a 'beginning exnihilo', that's what he wants to pursue. I haven't quoted? didn't i send you to watch Turok, Smolin, Krauss and others in an interview? they say it there.

@Christianjr4 Disclaimer: I'm the only Atheist I KNOW OF on Youtube, that makes videos on Cosmology and defends an eternal Universe.

@Christianjr4 Let me ask you two questions. Is Alexander Vilenkin a God believer, or Atheist? And is Stephen Hawking's no boundary proposal a model for an eternal Universe?

@Christianjr4 Actually, I am an expert in Cosmology. I've done the research and studied it for years. I have specialized knowledge in the field. In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only Atheist, in the Atheist Theist community that makes videos on Cosmology, and the only one I know of that defends an eternal Universe, since I'm keenly aware of what it means IF THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ETERNAL. You can engage in your argument from authority fallacy all you want. Whatever makes you feel better.

@Dhorpatan You're not an expert in cosmological matters. Therefore why should anyone side with you when you're saying things completely in contradiction to what Vilenkin says on HIS OWN THEOREM? I'm sorry, but I'd have to be crazy to side with you. You say things almost entirely opposite to what cosmologists say. I quote Vilenkin saying his theorem proves a beginning. You say the opposite. I quote Hawking saying most cosmologists accept a beginning. You again say the opposite. Simply AMAZING!

@Christianjr4 That's excellent. I think you're a dishonest person anyway, similar to DrCraigvideos, so of course when faced with the truth, I fully expect you not to be honest about it, but to resort to something underhanded like an argument from authority fallacy. Anything to allow you to continue to believe in the lie of God. Is Vilenkin an Atheist or Theist?

@Dhorpatan "That's all the BVG Theorem shows. Not at all that the Universe had a beginning." "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a PROOF is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. WITH THE PROOF NOW IN PLACE, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. THERE IS NO ESCAPE: they have to face the problem of a COSMIC BEGINNING." -Alex Vilenkin, "Many Worlds in One" p 176 Sorry, but I'm with Vilenkin on this one.

@Christianjr4 If the Hubble expansion is greater than zero, or it has an inflationary event, those had to have a start. They can't be eternal to the past. That's all it shows.

The single greatest mistake Christians make in Cosmology~!

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

Comments