Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Flat Earth Society?

Like I said, you don’t understand.

The source for the Big Bang can be found via a search for “matter for Big Bang”.

I have a passable understanding of the theory. For the depth of knowledge for which you seek, particle physicists can better explain it. The links can provide the enlightenment you desire.

Good luck in your search.

Just telling the truth, smoke. It’s what I do. 😉

Well.... Those links you refer to will most likely NOT provide enlightenment.... just speculation and bafflegab. I don't buy that singularity concept.... there is much bafflegab surrounding "singularity" and what it may or may not be. This has been around for a long time. Every single one of the references I have ever found on the subject ... every one.... starts with something. Stephen Hawking said that "given gravity' and his "equations" he could show how the universe came into being..... So, what does he start with? Gravity..... Well, the way he explains it... as I recall... is that gravity is a "force." Then he applies his equations to the "force" and comes up with matter.....Well, then no.... he started with a force. Where did that come from?

Some start with "space" .... ok... what is "space?" Some will then tell you that "space" is not "nothing" and that "space" has "characteristics" and is not "empty" like we think of "empty... then the bafflegab sets in.

This reached it's peak with Magic Larry Krauss and his book "The Universe from Nothing" or something like that. Talk show host Steven Colbert embarrassed him on live TV when Krauss admitted that yes, you had to start with "something." Krauss said that given "quantum theory" and ... as he stated....
...".. imagine a box with particles going in and out of existence..." something like that. Larry was a bookseller.... many, including frequent posters on this site fell for it. Larry was later discredited by the scientific community...also discredited at ASU.

It has been quite a while since I read this article and I will try to find it later tonight.... but there is an astro-physicist who says the universe did not come from a single point like some think of it..... he postulates that yes, there was a big bang type event but that the universe leapt into an almost instantaneous existence over a dimensions that would be measured in "light years." He apparently got this idea when looking into dark matter and trying to figure out how and why the universe is currently expanding in all directions. My crude understanding would be that he was saying that well yes there was a big bang but that "point" of singularity does not make sense when it seems the universe "banged" into existence and was light years big.

Seems that starting with "particle physics" is starting with "something." ......


But maybe not.....

If some one knows of a reference that can demonstrate that the universe came into being without a creator, pls let me know.....

If only Gus were here.

...............Actually, I was not seeking. You asked me "what basic laws of physics is that?" I responded and in that response I asked you two questions.

So, using your metric for logical decision making (ie proving that something doesn’t exist, or proving the negative), how did you manage to disprove the existence of all the other gods in order to select the one that you did?

This is the criteria that you are applying to others so lets hope you have not been hypocritical or deceitful and can provide an honest answer. (I’ll bet you don’t though.)

But, but, some really superstitious people who knew far less about the nature of the universe than we do wrote a story in a book 2000 years ago. I mean what more proof can you ask for than that. LOL!

It's truly amazing to watch the hypocritcal double standard employed by some. They utterly reject science if it can't completely explain, in two paragraphs or less, every mystery of the universe and do so in terms simple enough for a 3rd grader to understand.

Then in the next breath they fling their arms around and totally embrace an explanation for the universe that has no hard evidence at all and is basically dependent on accepting the word of people over 2000 years ago who still believed in witches, werewolves and vampires.

If God exists then it is reasonable to assume He influenced the creation of Scripture. That by itself does not offer evidence for the existence of God but it explains why Christians accept Scripture as more than simply the writings of men. IOW, Christians believe Scripture is divinely inspired.

You seem to be missing the point by a large margin. There is NO discovered science of any degree of complication or available to the brightest mind which explains the creation of time and matter. None. Zero. The existing science backed by empirical evidence points to the creation of time and matter at a finite point in the past. IOW, the existing science says there was a beginning.

They are taking the word of men that it is the word of God. And there's the weak link in the chain. There are about 4000 recognized religions. Each one with many fervent believers totally convinced their particular brand is the one and only divine truth. Yet since there can only be one truth simple logic dictates that 3999 of them have to be dead wrong. Thus proving that fervent belief is proof of absolutely nothing. And if 3999 are wrong despite such strong belief then it's no great stretch that all 4000 are wrong. Especially since none of them possess any greater evidence than the others.

Maybe there is some truth in a lot of those religions. The human race and their religions may resemble that story about the group of blind men and the elephant where each one felt a different part of the animal and came up with a different description of the animal based on whether they felt the tail, a leg, the tusks, etc. They started accusing each other of lying and came to blows.

Well, I will play one more time..... You are flat out wrong again…..You are also confused again… I am not trying to prove a negative… you are being deceitful when you say that I am. Just what is the “negative” that I am trying to prove?

Here is what you previously posted:

“Takes a big leap of faith to see something that's not there does it not?”

Think a bit…. This issue is whether or not YOU…. Can KNOW that God does NOT exist. You cannot possibly know that. You can believe He does not exist. You can say that you recognize no evidence for the existence of God…. But you cannot possibly know that He does not exist. You cannot know that any more than you can know how many ticks are on my neighbor’s dog.

Your statement about God…. “..something that’s not there…” is like posting that you know how many ticks are on that dog. But… seemingly, you cannot see the absurdity of your allegation.

I followed up with this:

“Nope, you’ve got it all wrong. Just because YOU don’t see it…..and YOU don’t experience it…does not mean it’s not there.

Simple concept….simple idea…..but you don’t get it.”


There are a multitude of things, facts and aspects of life that you do not know about. The reality is that what you do not know about these things does not in any way indicate that they are unreal. Not trying to prove a negative at all…. Simply making a statement that you cannot possibly know that God‘s “not there.” You can’t possible know that God does not exist anymore than you can know how many ticks are on my neighbor’s dog.

Your latest post is just plain nonsensical….. I never set up any “metric for logical decision making” This is a flat out fabrication on your part. I never tried to prove a negative at all. This is another fabrication on your part.

The fact that you think that I was trying to prove that something does not exist or “proving the negative” is simply poorly thought out nonsense….

Then you take a swipe by asking this: “…how did you manage to disprove the existence of all the other gods in order to select the one that you did?” I did not do anything of the kind and you are again are, true to form….. fabricating and again, just flat out wrong…..

Here is your last post:

So, using your metric for logical decision making (ie proving that something doesn’t exist, or proving the negative), (Nope, never did this.....never came up with any metric to prove something does or does not exist...). how did you manage to disprove the existence of all the other gods in order to select the one that you did? (Nope, never made any attempt to disprove the existence of all the other gods..... more fabrication on your part.)

This is the criteria that you are applying to others so lets hope you have not been hypocritical or deceitful and can provide an honest answer. (I’ll bet you don’t though.) (Well, I think I did answer.)

Nobody has to believe in a multiverse or anything else. Science doesn't work like that. Multiverse, Branes, Cyclic Universe, etc, are proposals that need to be tested.

And yes, the evidence shows that the Universe began 13. 7 billion years or so ago....but that means in its present form. It is not known whether time began with the BB.

The universe could be cyclic, it could be a part of a multiverse....the point is: we don't know.

And: we don't know, therefore God, is not a solution.

The correct answer is: we don't know.

You say that just because I haven’t seen any evidence of a god that I can’t definitively say they don’t exist. The lack of evidence is proof to me that a god doesn’t exist but you don’t seem to buy this.

I never saw anyone drive the car out of the driveway and park onto the street, doesn’t mean, aliens, ghosts or god moved it and would be preposterous to try and prove this negative, so not even worth considering.

Proving the negative was an idiotic notion that you started – I get it, it’s not relevant and just plain stupid – it doesn’t mean anything worthwhile. Like I said it leads into infinite fairytale possibilities.





Under your logic for me all gods fall into the category of can’t know for sure that they don’t exist, but you yourself have chosen a god thereby nullifying the thought of considering any others (exclusive deity). I have undertaken a similar decision process but concluded that there are no gods, and you tell me I can’t do that. Rather than accepting that as my position, you point out that I could wrong.


I say:
I don’t believe in a god because I haven’t seen evidence, and there has been a long history of no evidence.

You say:
Doesn’t mean there’s no god (ie implying that I could be wrong).

Like it or not, I have reached my decision.




See above. Why do you keep insisting on the “doesn’t mean god doesn’t exist” line?

Also note that you can count the ticks on a dog, if you really want to.

Absence of evidence means holding a belief that is not supported. If there is no evidence for the reality of Allah, it is not justified to believe in the existence of Allah. Rather than logic and reason, to believe without evidence is a matter of faith.

Then you live by faith. The faith that there is no God. The faith that science will explain the origin the universe and of physics itself.

The multiverse is not empirically testable. That is what makes it the perfect atheist fantasy. Branes are not an alternative explanation for the origin of the universe. There is positive evidence against a cyclic universe.


You don't understand deductive reasoning.

I conclude that you simply refuse to understand or more likely, you do not comprehend.

There is definitely some profound wisdom in some of em’.

What you choose to believe is up to you, and irrelevant to me providing you don't try and push your crap om me.

Sorry old friend. Many of the beliefs are "mutually exclusive", meaning different religions will hold different beliefs that cannot all be true at the same time.

God has written His law on our hearts and we are made in His image. We all know this in a deep and abiding way that even scientistic materialism and post modern relativism can’t erase.

A cursory examination of history reveals religious practices all around the world which point to a deep hunger in the human heart to be reconciled to some creator for some wrong we sense in ourselves.

The lengths to which men will go to deny this shows what a chasm our fall has created between us and the holy just and almighty uncaused first cause who has written His story around reconciliation and redemption.

Bless His holy name.