Big Bang doesn't imply a beginning to the universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
He mentioned black hole theory, not anything involving black holes.
 
EndTimes said:
And my job is to remind you that your act is pure speculation. That’s a fact! 🙂

It’s never my intention to prove or disprove endless , "What If’s?"
Click to expand...
So is saying that the big bang was the beginning of everything. I’ve provided just enough logical and possible proof as exists for the universe having a beginning.
 
Are you kidding? A scientific theory is not speculation. It’s a statement of what science considers to be well supported by a large body of evidence. Lemme guess, you think evolution is speculative because it’s “just a theory”?
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
So is saying that the big bang was the beginning of everything.

I’ve provided just enough logical and possible proof as exists for the universe having a beginning.
Click to expand...
You’re losing me…

I’ve never said that the Big Bang IS the beginning of Everything… !

Yes I did say that the Big Bang IMPLIES a beginning to the Universe …

You’ve provided current unProven theories - connected with Black Hole theories (PLURAL) , period.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea why you’re taking issue with what I’m doing. I’m presenting an idea as fact and seeing if anyone can disprove it. I’m trying to show you that you’re being disingenuous by dismissing a cyclical universe as impossible. Saying that it’s all speculation doesn’t make me wrong, it just means you missed the point entirely.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
I have no idea why you’re taking issue with what I’m doing.
I’m presenting an idea as fact and seeing if anyone can disprove it.
Click to expand...
You’ve been mis-representing my words as this thread attests to

And You’ve said that before and I’ve responded to it.

I’ll remind you that your fact act is pure speculation. That’s a fact! 🙂

It’s never my intention to prove or disprove endless, “What If’s?”

For IF any presents an actual FACT - it would be foolish to waste time attempting to disprove it!

My Question: Disprove the Big Bang doesn’t Imply a Beginning to the Universe is weightier…

FOR, It’s a long time known fact (presented for years upon years) that the Big Bang has been presented AS the Beginning of the Universe - Stephen Hawking said so, BTW.

That said, Note: I’ve never claimed the BIG BANG IS, per se.

We’re speaking of IMPLY…

Vive la difference…
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
I have no idea why you’re taking issue with what I’m doing. I’m presenting an idea as fact and seeing if anyone can disprove it. I’m trying to show you that you’re being disingenuous by dismissing a cyclical universe as impossible. Saying that it’s all speculation doesn’t make me wrong, it just means you missed the point entirely.
Click to expand...
You’ve been mis-representing via misunderstanding my words as this thread attests to

And You’ve said that before and I’ve responded to it.

I’ll remind you that your fact act is pure speculation. That’s a fact! 🙂

It’s never my intention to prove or disprove endless, “What If’s?”

For IF any presents an actual FACT - it would be foolish to waste time attempting to disprove it!

My Question: Disprove the Big Bang doesn’t Imply a Beginning to the Universe? is weightier…

FOR, It’s a long time known fact (presented for years upon years) that the Big Bang has been presented AS the Beginning of the Universe! - Stephen Hawking said so, BTW.

That said, Note: I’ve never claimed the BIG BANG IS, per se.

We’re speaking of IMPLY…
 
Last edited:
Once again, it doesn’t matter that I’m speculating, because that’s all we can do about this. Regardless…
EndTimes said:
My Question: Disprove the Big Bang doesn’t Imply a Beginning to the Universe?
Click to expand...
I already have. The universe could theoretically have been caused by a previous universe collapsing, and then the subsequent rebound created our current iteration of the universe. That’s what I’ve been saying this entire thread.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
I already have. The universe could theoretically have been caused by a previous universe collapsing, and then the subsequent rebound created our current iteration of the universe. That’s what I’ve been saying this entire thread.
Click to expand...
Yes…

Doesn’t everyone know by now that that theory has been bandied about for some years now?

Answer: It may or may not. And as Hawking said: “NO”

I happen to be a friend of the author of a tome Self Creating Universe- which dates back years.

That said, I don’t agree with him and we’ve often spoken of his theory…
which is just one theory amongst many of the same sense wrt Big Bang.

Pushing someone to disprove something which has not been proven - is an exercise in futility…

It’s a Fallacious Argument, BTW…

It’s known as Stacking the Deck - which is related to Straw Man…

_
 
Last edited:
You’ve moved the goalposts so much I don’t even think they’re on the field anymore.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
You’ve moved the goalposts so much I don’t even think they’re on the field anymore.
Click to expand...
No… I haven’t moved any so-called goalposts… 🙂

Argumentum Ad Ignorantium, literally “Argument from Ignorance”

Arguing that, if the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true.

MeanWhile the other side of that coin still remains fact and not a false argument .

The Big Bang Theory IMPLIES that the Universe had a Beginning AKA The Big Bang! 🙂
 
Last edited:
EndTimes said:
The Big Bang Theory IMPLIES that the Universe had a Beginning AKA The Big Bang! 🙂
Click to expand...
And he’s arguing (as near as I can tell, correct me if I’m wrong) the beginning of the universe is irrelevant as you can’t say definitively it’s the “start” of creation.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
The beginning of the infinite series called natural numbers is the number 1. It’s a finite, measurable number. That’s the present, and the cycle goes on infinitely back from here, just as numbers increase infinitely from 1.
Click to expand...
The number 1 is not an actual object, it’s an abstract principle. You can have one dog or one saxophone, but you can’t have a one. Even given that numbers are abstract principles, it’s still impossible to reach the end of an infinite series - and repeating an impossible claim over and over doesn’t make it so.
Freddy said:
That’s not correct. In a cyclical universe, there is no chain of events. The same event - the big bang, just repeats itself.
Click to expand...
An infinite series has no endpoint, whether it’s cyclical or not - that’s a concept that’s not impossible to imagine, and yet you seem to have missed it. Please don’t tell me it’s wrong just because you slept through freshman math.

These sorts of theories are very clever, but there’s no evidence that they conform to reality, nor can there be. In fact, due to quantum uncertainty, it’s not possible in principle that our universe could identically repeat itself in other cycles.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Anrakyr said:
The Big Bang Theory IMPLIES that the Universe had a Beginning AKA The Big Bang! 🙂
Click to expand...
No… “he’s” (meaning me) simply stated this FACT with those words:

The Big Bang IMPLIES the UNIVERSE had a Beginning…

That’s it. Nothing more… Nothing less. Nothing about relevance or irrelevance.

In FACT, The historical FACT that many took - and still take - that AS FACT - supports IMPLIES…

Theories exist which claim: that yes said IMPLICATION is not True - remain Theories and Not FACT

Which in turn does not eliminate IMPLIES…

The ANSWER to the Question: Big Bang doesn’t imply a beginning to the universe? is:

NO! … Because: The Big Bang IMPLIES the UNIVERSE had a Beginning…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It’s a universe… Isn’t that the point?
EndTimes said:
The Big Bang IMPLIES the UNIVERSE had a Beginning…

That’s it. Nothing more… Nothing less. Nothing about relevance or irrelevance.
Click to expand...
Actually I think that’s the exact opposite of what the word implication implies. When you say imply you are inferring to a possible idea not an exact one. You are asking a question when you imply you can infer more specifically.
EndTimes said:
Theories exist which claim: that yes said IMPLICATION is not True - remain Theories and Not FACT
Click to expand...
Scientific theories are facts until proven otherwise. The reason why we treat them as facts is because we have proofs of them. There’s a process to it you create a theory it is unproven, you then create a proof that proves the theory it is not changed from being called a theory.

This is the terminology of the scientific world. Stop confusing the dictionary definition of words from the terminology of a field.
EndTimes said:
Which in turn does not eliminate IMPLIES…
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what it eliminates. there is no extra implication The big bang theory is merely about this cycle it is not about the creation of everything as a whole just what we observe it does not prevent or exclude the addition of other scientific theories. No scientist in their right mind would do that.
 
Anrakyr said:
It’s a universe… Isn’t that the point?
Click to expand...
That sounds like a throwaway comment, but perhaps it’s a good time to point out that the word universe indicates “every contingent thing that is”, and that the idea that there can be multiple universes is oxymoronic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top