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

[EndTimes]

Actually I think that’s the exact opposite of what the word implication implies.

I agree with you’re saying that you ‘think’

And I too have been wondering whether or not you know what Imply actually means…

And I’m not referring to ‘Infer’

The HEADER of this Thread Is: Big Bang doesn’t imply a beginning to the universe?

One should re-read that Opening Post in order to see what YHWH_Christ meant by that question
_____________________________________________________________

Implication, Evidence, Proof/Fact … are distinct from one another

Just as Black Holes have come to be seen (somewhat recently)
as Implying / Evidencing that perhaps they spawn other universes via Yes Educated Ponderings,
said Evidencings are still yet Not FACT
The Big Bang Implies/Evidences as well - and for that reason were/are taken as FACT…

Inference, Evidence, Proof/Fact … are distinct from one another …

So perhaps we’ve been speaking past one another

That said? Yes, This Universe Exists - and no one definitively knows if any other Universes Exist

Yes… The Big Bang IMPLIES the UNIVERSE had a Beginning…

___________________________________________

The Big Bang Theory of the ex nihilo (from out of nothing) Origin/Beginning of the Universe was first proposed in 1927 by a Catholic priest - which in turn melds with Genesis - and recognized by Phsyics with The Simularity - of No Mass … and spawned the long-time held belief throughout most of that time up to the present time which is still held by some yet not all - that the Big Bang is the Beginning of the Universe - is FACT… And of which, with its potential connection of dove-tailing with the Bible and God - never sat very well with for instance, those - such as Atheists - some of whom actively oppose anything which might imply and therefore infer that God Exists!

That said?

I’m Not claiming in any manner by what I’ve said above - that therefore, God Exists!

God’s Existence or Not - is a totally distinct topic.

---

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

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.

That’s the worst non-argument I’ve ever heard. If you have an infinite series of groups of M&Ms, starting with 1 and going to infinity, you have a start. Just as the numbers go up to infinity, the universes go backwards to infinity. You’re really reaching.

 

[neophyte]

That’s the worst non-argument I’ve ever heard. If you have an infinite series of groups of M&Ms…

But you can’t have them, by definition. You can think about them in the abstract, but you can’t actually have them in reality. And you can’t ever get to the end of an infinite series, by definition.

It’s obvious that you don’t understand what “infinite” means, or what constitutes a good argument.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

That’s…wow. I’m done.

 

[EndTimes]

Just as the numbers go up to infinity, the universes go backwards to infinity. You’re really reaching.

No…

Numbers are not part of the actual Physical Realm…

Rather, they’ve been generated by - and exist in and in a generally important manner - Minds; Maths

They are Language … without Measureable Qualities: No Mass, No Velocity, No Dimensions…

Actual Infinitesimals and Infinities do not exist in the Universe because of
Planckian Restrictions on Mass, Distance, Time…

_

 

[Maximus1]

Explain how this system began to exist.