I would refer you to the Hawking Centre for Theoretical Cosmology and tell them they are wrong . Good luck .
YEP! An unfortunate twist of words on their part and if you bothered to send them an e-mail they might clarify what they meant by that expression…
The laws of nature are not prescriptive because they do not tell you or direct you what to do. Gravity is not directed to pull an object downward toward the earth. Gravity doesn’t tell you not to drop a hammer on your foot. The laws of nature are descriptive . They are observations about reality that we have made in this time, in this space. We know that they were not the same millions of years ago and may not be the same a few million years into the future. We know that they break down at Planck time.
Demonstrate - (God as being the cause of the above ) and explain how you ruled out natural causes.
Another moronic statement leading to an equivocation fallacy as you try to blend faith into hope, Faith is not a path to truth and there is absolutely nothing I can not assert to be true based on faith. It is as useless a word as the posts you are making; however, we all have hope that you will see the idiocy of your ways, drop your dipshit assertions, rethink your position and come away with a more skeptical and rational mind.
2 Likes
Hey - I covered this on the old forum with links and everything -
YOU still didn’t get specific where on the site it had that wording … you quote-miner you 
Yes, this is known as a “singularity”, something with dimensions so small it is almost zero, but containing tremendous energy. I am sure you are familiar with Einstein’s postulate that energy can be converted into matter, and vice versa. And that has been proven, else we would not have nuclear weapons.
So it had basically zero dimensions. But the kicker is this: the temperature was 100 million trillion trillion kelvins. And as the singularity began to expand, it cooled, and through processes I will not describe to you, that energy evolved, and eventually the energy evolved further, and matter came out of it.
So now that I have explained in very basic terms how all of this known universe came from a singularity, will you ponder this? Because to the people who do the math, it all fits neatly together. The temperature was so high it was able to create all the known matter we can identify, as well as all of the energy.
I don’t, nor do scientists agree that this was “existence manifesting”. You have heard the honest reply, we do not know what came before the big bang. No one knows, albeit some interesting propositions have been advanced.
I have offered a rational explanation that has no contradictions, does not violate the laws of physics, and all of the calculations agree. All of this is based on the evidence and some very smart people.
I expect you to just state “god did it”.
Which possible explanation is rational, probable, and is based on reality?
Unfortunately, you are mis-representing that quote and what it intended.
“Initial state”, you seem to have missed that part. “Initial”, which was the singularity. Planck time, which is 10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second.
Because, as you have been informed, no one knows what happened before the big bang.
No we don’t. I only put highly probable, measurable things into my personal model. You have to redefine faith to apply it to us and once again, this is a false equivalency fallacy. We have never measured god or souls or heaven or hell or god creating the universe or adam and eve sinning or jesus resurrecting from the dead or sin or if saying a few magic words means that your invisible organ goes to the happy alternate universe instead of the eternal torture one. We can’t prove that jesus has saved even 1 soul. You believe in many things that have never been measured and are low probability and it is not the same. This is why it is a false equivalency. The only evidence you have for this is some guys 2000 years ago may have seen some things that may have some supernatural components. Why is this true and the other 4000 religions false? Please… This is the reason why scientists that cannot show other scientists how to measure their claims are called frauds.
Cognostic for one - @The flying pig: Where do laws of nature come from? We invent them. We observe the world / universe around us, and when we see things that appear to be common place everywhere we look, we call it a law.
Go tell the Hawking Centre they got it wrong , not me .
Again , you disagree with that quote from the Hawking Centre ?
Again can you find the exact quote on their site???
All you are telling is after the fact . Certainly fits the “descriptive” model . “ It didn’t violate the Laws of Physics “. Where did come from ?
Nope 
. Sorry don’t agree - they were an exaggerating bunch of story tellers.
I don’t have a clue what is “supernatural components”… like what does this mean?
2 Likes
No, mankind examined and measured those laws. They were around long before this planet formed.
I posted an explanation, including “we do not know” what occurred before the big bang.
Unless this is comedy on your part, or you suffer from some mental processing ability, the sole conclusion I can reach is that you are trolling me.
1 Like
Let’s say that the witnesses were not lying meaning that they still could have been tricked. The fact is that religious people are assuming that what the witnesses saw had a supernatural component and was not a trick. That is why supernatural miracles are unfalsifiable, and you can’t use unfalsifiable things as evidence.
Yes, I think it is highly probably that it was all made up. I was attempting to structure my response in a way that covered both scenarios, but may have been convoluted.
I think you understate.
I prefer ‘myth makers’ and ‘bare faced liars’ They got away with it because people then were even more gullible than today’s most extreme believers in the most absurd televangelist. (see below)
Yes, I realise I’ve posted it before. It’s just such an eloquent expression of my point that I can’t resist
1 Like
Gotcha - however aren’t most of the accounts hearsay - few are first person … I just read what sounds like myths.
Sorta like this:
1 Like
Of course they are, but they don’t believe that. As I noted in one of these threads, they think these are eye witness accounts. The point is, even if they were, and they actually saw something they couldn’t explain, they would need to have “faith” that the source is supernatural and not a trick. I’ve talked to these people for decades, and trusting that a person isn’t lying is a different than believing an event has a supernatural source. Both are bad epistemologies and that’s why I point both out.
Love the vid. Robin Williams had a great Jesus sketch.
Don’t recall - maybe I’ve never seen/heard it.
@Sheldon Re: Prima Fascia
I don’t know much Latin, but I do know Prima Fascia(l) sounds like a good name for a porn movie. Does that help?