No - it's me!
And: Woe is me!
Polls are not debating...:roll:
No - it's me!
And: Woe is me!
Polls are not debating...:roll:
In another thread, Sherlock states that “I'm quite convinced though that a scientific explanation for the presence of the universe is a logical impossibility, science, mathematical laws, matter, energy can't really take part in an explanation for themselves, this is blindingly obvious - to me.”
Except that what is blindingly obvious to Sherlock is not so to physicists who study and research the matter. As such, here are various readings that give some SCIENTIFIC theories as to the pre-Bang state at that time.
What happened before the Big Bang: What Happened Before the Big Bang? | Live Science
What happened before the Big Bang? | Space
What Came Before the Big Bang? | Discover Magazine
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-came-before-the-big-bang/
What happened before the Big Bang? | Space | EarthSky
Yes, a LOT of scientists disagree with Sherlock.
Neither are the repetitive talking points of Sherlock.
Those are at best hypotheses, not theories, as they have zero supporting evidence.
Not according to the scientists who have done the research. Sorry, but I will tend to believe them over you.
Except your links are pop science bull****, not peer reviewed papers, so you are getting the words of the scientists. You’re getting the words of journalists trying to drive ad revenue.
They are accurately stating the conclusions of the scientists who have done research in this area. Yes, they "dumb it down" a bit for the readers who are not necessarily scientists themselves, but that doesn't make any of it untrue with respect to what the scientists have shown through evidence. It's certainly better than the material that Tosca has been presenting, which is nothing more than the LAY OPINION of one person, which he himself admits. He may be a very competent research chemists, but he has done ZERO scientific research into evolution.
Those are not "conclusions". Those are suppositions and they don't have any evidence to back any of them up. There is no evidence of anything until factions of a second AFTER the Big Bang already started.
So, at best we have an educated guess, so to speak? I think you would agree that this falls surprisingly close to the definition of a hypothesis.It depends by what you mean by "evidence". They certainly use their knowledge of physics to present suppositions, but they don't just say "I believe this or I believe that". They do indeed present what they have as evidence that their particular scenario could have happened. And by "anything", you mean this particular universe. What was there before? That's what they are looking at.
So, at best we have an educated guess, so to speak? I think you would agree that this falls surprisingly close to the definition of a hypothesis.
It depends by what you mean by "evidence". They certainly use their knowledge of physics to present suppositions, but they don't just say "I believe this or I believe that". They do indeed present what they have as evidence that their particular scenario could have happened. And by "anything", you mean this particular universe. What was there before? That's what they are looking at.
No disagreement there. They are indeed hypotheses based on evidence as they see it.
There is no evidence. They cannot look further back than a few fractions of a second after the Big Bang already started. Before that point, physics breaks down and equations start putting out gibberish answers.
I'm not sure what your point is here. They are scientists doing research and coming up with hypotheses based on what they know about physics and the universe. Would you have them stop doing so? Science is about continuing to learn about the universe. I see that as a good thing.
Where have I said anything about stopping? I’m correcting your false statements that there are theories and evidence of what fake before the Big Bang. There isn’t and that’s not what scientists are saying. They are hypothesizing, but people should understand those hypotheses do not have evidence to support them.
The information was presented as an antithesis to those who are claiming that not knowing what happened prior to the Big Bang is somehow evidence that there is a God. It's not. just because we don't know what there was before the Big Bang does not mean that we (humans using science) should not keep seeking.
Correct, we should keep seeking, but you should also not be claiming that definitive answers exist. The correct answer to the question of what came before the Big Bang is “we don’t know, and might not ever know”.
Nitpicking:
The word "before" in the sense that we know it is logically absurd when used in relation to existence.
At the big bang, all energy existed at a mathematical point. (I put it that way because mass is only an emergent quality of energy).
At the big bang, the statement "there are dimensions" is false. (Note: "are" refers to a present. This is a flaw in this post).
At a different* point, the statement "there is time (the 4th large dimension)" is true. At all points after that point in the dimension we call time, temporal terms like "before" and "after" and "now" are rational.
There is not a "from" or a "before" in the sense that we understand it in English or any other human language.
__________
* Bit of a problem, that. It is because it is ("I am that I am"?), and that's a deep as you can drill.
No one said that definitive answer exist. Except the theists who claim that God absolutely exists.
I'm not sure what your point is here. They are scientists doing research and coming up with hypotheses based on what they know about physics and the universe. Would you have them stop doing so? Science is about continuing to learn about the universe. I see that as a good thing.
Correct, we should keep seeking, but you should also not be claiming that definitive answers exist. The correct answer to the question of what came before the Big Bang is “we don’t know, and might not ever know”.
At what point does it stop being science and become philosophy? None of the articles you linked to have anything that even resembles a testable hypothesis.