• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We Can Learn What Was Before The Big Bang??!!

I listened to Michio KaKu this morning on Fox and he said using the Hadron Collider we can go back before the Big Bang. I was not aware this was possible. So answer this question would this not give us the final answer? Or is it only how it happened, not what made it happen? I am lost here.

I have known what was before the creation of the world for years. God.
 
It's funny.

You're so willing to discount God, or the existence of a Creator, which you base on " Science".

But you're scientifically ignorant. Lol !!

How embarassing.

Cmon, I challenge you to a discussion on particle physics and the Hadron Collider.

What's wrong ? Did you go Google it earlier and realize it's beyond your comprehension ?

Because thats not my fault.

I guess you're a liberal for a reason.

Again, can you PROVE that it's all due to a CHRISTIAN god yes or no? Magnetic fields used to be looked at as magic until they were explained.

YOU are the one claiming its all due to a CHRISTIAN god. Prove it, oh yeah you can't. Funny how you discout anything else, yet try to lay claim as fact when it is just faith.

I have not discounted ANYTHING, I have only said it cannot be proven one way or another.
 
Again, can you PROVE that it's all due to a CHRISTIAN god yes or no? Magnetic
fields used to be looked at as magic until they were explained.

YOU are the one claiming its all due to a CHRISTIAN god. Prove it, oh yeah you can't. Funny how you discout anything else, yet try to lay claim as fact when it is just faith.

I have not discounted ANYTHING, I have only said it cannot be proven one way or another.

Start your own thread in the Religion section.

The difference between me and you is first, at least a good 30 points in IQ, AND I possess actual knowledge of particle physics.

Its essentially what the threads about in terms of the Hadron Collider.

But your attempt to interject yourself into a discussion that you have no bussiness discussing just makes you look foolish.

Science escapes you intellectually so you feel you have the right to derail someones thread.

Are you always that abnoxious, selfish and rude ?

I guess you chose to mouse away from my challenge.

Color me surprised...
 
Start your own thread in the Religion section.

The difference between me and you is first, at least a good 30 points in IQ, AND I possess actual knowledge of particle physics.

Its essentially what the threads about in terms of the Hadron Collider.

But your attempt to interject yourself into a discussion that you have no bussiness discussing just makes you look foolish.

Science escapes you intellectually so you feel you have the right to derail someones thread.

Are you always that abnoxious, selfish and rude ?

I guess you chose to mouse away from my challenge.

Color me surprised...

LOL you insult me and then claim I'm selfish and rude. :lamo

You don't get to decide what happens here nor how I post. Don't like it, go elsewhere. I'm here to stay and I will post what I wish on the subject without your approval thank you.

You cannot refute my claims either. You talk a big talk but don't walk the walk. You can no more prove that it was a CHRISTIAN god behind it over multiple gods or no god. You simply can't. Nothing changes that.

Waiting on you to prove that it was a CHRISTIAN god and not multiple gods.
 
LOL you insult me and then claim I'm selfish and rude. :lamo


You don't get to decide what happens here nor how I post. Don't like it, go elsewhere. I'm here to stay and I will post what I wish on the subject without your approval thank you.

You cannot refute my claims either. You talk a big talk but don't walk the walk. You can no more prove that it was a CHRISTIAN god behind it over multiple gods or no god. You simply can't. Nothing changes that.

Waiting on you to prove that it was a CHRISTIAN god and not multiple gods.


You ARE rude and you're insulting yourself.

Trust me, your refusal to stick to the Ops subject matter and my challenge is embarassing.

And I don't have to refute your silly claim.

I'm a Christian and all that requires from me is faith.

Your ignorant, but come in a thread and try to sidetrack it by using scientific principles.

Its almost embarrasing to watch.
 
You ARE rude and you're insulting yourself.

Trust me, your refusal to stick to the Ops subject matter and my challenge is embarassing.

And I don't have to refute your silly claim.

I'm a Christian and all that requires from me is faith.

Your ignorant, but come in a thread and try to sidetrack it by using scientific principles.

Its almost embarrasing to watch.

Yes, it is embarrasing to watch you claim to have a high IQ and claim the Christian God is the reason for everything.

Some challenge when you cannot even stand ground on your own claim. Have fun with your FAITH because that is all it is, not proof.
 
Yes, it is embarrasing to watch you claim
to have a high IQ and claim the Christian God is the reason for everything.

Some challenge when you cannot even stand ground on your own claim. Have fun with your FAITH because that is all it is, not proof.

Says the guy who can't even offer up a layman's discussion on particle physics....

LOL !!

You're still embarrasing yourself by the way.

Care to stay on topic and post something thats relevent ?
 
Says the guy who can't even offer up a layman's discussion on particle physics....

LOL !!

You're still embarrasing yourself by the way.

Care to stay on topic and post something thats relevent ?

I am on-topic. You claim that it is all the Christian god yet cannot offer any proof. Wow it's embarrassing to be you. I'm having a great day laughing at you.
 
I am on-topic. You claim that it is all the Christian god yet cannot offer any
proof. Wow it's embarrassing to be you. I'm having a great day laughing at you.

LOL !!

Now your stealing my words.

And No, you railroaded this thread with your ignorance.

I simply trued to right it since it's in the SCIENCE section of ths forum.

A section that apparently you have no bussiness in.

Go make a fool out of yourself somewhere else.
 
Again, you don't own these forums and if you don't like what I say, go pound sand! I will comment on the religious aspects of how religion impedes science and growth. Don't like it, TOUGH ****.

Just because one cannot account for EVERYTHING, doesn't mean the Christian god is the reason.
You faith based people are funny. Good thing you arent a judgmental prick though...right?
 
Let's discuss what they're currently accomplishing at the Hadron Collider and how that could lead to a better understanding of our Universe both pre and post big bang.

Some clown sidetracked a scientific discussion and I think its important to keep the SCIENCE part of the forum focused on SCIENCE.

They've recently detected a Particle that behaves like the Higgs Bosun should, giving some credence to the existence of the Higgs field.

The theoretical field that gives all particles their mass. The Higgs Bosun is the intrinsic particle in the Higgs field that acts on all other particles.( with the exception of photons ).

Without the Higgs field transmitting mass to particles our Universe would just be a mix of particles zipping around at light speed with no mechanisms to act on other particles.

That is called the Higgs Effect.

Then once they found that, they found that it raise more questions then it answered...

Now the only compelling aargument scientist have made prior big bang is that our entire Universe existed in the form of a singularity...A point with infinite gravitaional pull and zero mass.

There was no time space continuum, no speck floating in a void, there was simply NOTHING but for a singularity.

Now those who discount God cannot account for WHY or who in that pre-big bang existence.

That's why at some level there's an inescapable paradox where, in the beginning of a universe of causality there inevitably comes a point where you have a "causeless effect".

Stephen hawking once said how in the beginning the universe would have existed as some "probability wave" (as per quantum mechanics), until it came into actuality. However, he is a staunch atheist and has claimed to have a resolution to the paradox that doesn't require "god".
 
Then once they found that, they found
that it raise more questions then it answered...



That's why at some level there's an inescapable paradox where, in the beginning of a universe of causality there inevitably comes a point where you have a "causeless effect".

Stephen hawking once said how in the beginning the universe would have existed as some "probability wave" (as per quantum mechanics), until it came into actuality. However, he is a staunch atheist and has claimed to have a resolution to the paradox that doesn't require "god".

Yea I may not have stated specifically that what they detected was a particle that behaved like a the Higgs Bosun should.

And yes, they haven't confirmed that that was the Higgs Bosun.

By any rate it is a step towards proving the Grand Unifying Theory.

Eventually when we can identify the fundamental particles and their corresponding waves with certainty the next step will be research into pre-big bang "existence".

That's if CERN doesn't start a Globe Killing chain reaction by accidentally creating a " strange quark". ( unlikely yes I know )

There are still allot of unanswered questions surrounding the Big Bang theory like the Flatness Problem. Recent data from NASA has shown the our entire universes spatial geometry is essentially isotropoc and homogoneous. Any pre-big bang theories would have to account for this anomaly.

There is also the Horizon Problem where radiation from the Big Bang seems to have spread out in a Uniform and isotropic rate. For radiation to be this uniform the photons would have had to be mixed around allot.

At light speed their simply hasn't been enough time to accomplish this. For photons to zip accross the Universe and back enough to become "thermalized".

And there is the magnetic mono-pole problem. Super String Theory and the Grand Unifying Theory both speculate that they exist, but we still hav'nt located one. We can isolate and identify mono-polar particles with either aa positive or negative charge but no monopoles.

IF yoy cut a magnet in half that had a North and South designation, you would just be left with two magnets with North and South designations.

Anyway, yes allot of unanswered questions.
 
It seems to me that since the space/time we inhabit didn't exist "before" the BB, then searching for something which existed in a nowhere and nowhen is utterly futile.
 
How about we keep this a science thread as I intended it to be when I started it so you god folks go to your religion section and preach there or do you have to preach your gospel everywhere despite the lack of a welcome sign or invitation?
 
I am on-topic. You claim that it is all the Christian god yet cannot offer any proof. Wow it's embarrassing to be you. I'm having a great day laughing at you.

Do you have undeniable proof that there is no God?
 
Do you have undeniable proof that there is no God?

Nope, but then it's not my position that there IS or IS NOT a god. I don't speak about either of those in absolute terms.
 
It seems to me that since the space/time
we inhabit didn't exist "before" the BB, then searching for something which existed in a nowhere and nowhen is utterly futile.

You're right, it's paradoxical to ask what came " before" time.

All we have to guide us after the big bang are the basic Universal truths.

1) there is no new energy or mass being created since the big bang and all existing mass and energy that exist in the Universe today has been around since the begining.

2) events cause the release of energy which allows some of that energy to become available.

3) Their is a finite number of declining causes, a chain reaction of events and these make their way back to the first " event".
 
Nope, but then it's not my position that there IS or IS NOT a god. I don't speak about either of those in absolute terms.

But there has to be one or the other, right? You are essentially giving up.
 
But there has to be one or the other,
right? You are essentially giving up.

Even the most staunch Atheist cannot offer up a legitimate argument that would disprove the existence of God.

Extra's hang up is the Christian God and thats based on his political ideology.

He's dragging his politics into a thread on theoretical matters.
 
Even the most staunch Atheist cannot offer up a legitimate argument that would disprove the existence of God.

Extra's hang up is the Christian God and thats based on his political ideology.

He's dragging his politics into a thread on theoretical matters.

That's the point that I am trying to make. Just like people who believe in God put faith into their reasoning, there is still faith in the stance that there exists no God because there is no proof. No one is better than the other. There is this stigma that people who do not believe in God are more intellectual or something. More rational. But they are practicing the same faith as the believer. People inevitably cite The Enlightenment as proof of this stance that not believing in a God is more rational.

Again, this is way too simplistic. There are multiple interpretations of God out there. Not all of them can be right, and more than likely not all of them have been discovered. Copernicus and Galileo had to do with the Catholic school of thought only at that time. Just because The Church was disproven, why does that constitute to no God? Why can't there be any God that created the reality that science is trying to uncover?
 
That's the point that I am trying to make.
Just like people who believe in God put faith into their reasoning, there is still faith in the stance that there exists no God because there is no proof. No one is better than the other. There is this stigma that people who do not believe in God are more intellectual or something. More rational. But they are practicing the same faith as the believer. People inevitably cite The Enlightenment as proof of this stance that not believing in a God is more rational.

Again, this is way too simplistic. There are multiple interpretations of God out there. Not all of them can be right, and more than likely not all of them have been discovered. Copernicus and Galileo had to do with the Catholic school of thought only at that time. Just because The Church was disproven, why does that constitute to no God? Why can't there be any God that created the reality that science is trying to uncover?


Excellent point, excellent post.

Although I consider myself well read and knowledgable scientifically I'm still a Christian, I just leave those discussions to religious threads.

We can trace a succession of declining causes back to the original action.

An event that was transendant of our known Universe and of the physical laws of our Universe.

It may seem ironic to some, but my study of everything from the great unifying theory to superstring theory hasn't shaken my faith one bit.

If anything it's strengthened it.
 
Excellent point, excellent post.

Although I consider myself well read and knowledgable scientifically I'm still a Christian, I just leave those discussions to religious threads.

We can trace a succession of declining causes back to the original action.

An event that was transendant of our known Universe and of the physical laws of our Universe.

It may seem ironic to some, but my study of everything from the great unifying theory to superstring theory hasn't shaken my faith one bit.

If anything it's strengthened it.

This too happens to me when I read about the edge of physics and what we know about the reality in front of us. I do take it with a grain of salt because I know that things could be different than what they seem, but to me it has strengthened my stance that there is a God.
 
Even the most staunch Atheist cannot offer up a legitimate argument that would disprove the existence of God.

Extra's hang up is the Christian God and thats based on his political ideology.

He's dragging his politics into a thread on theoretical matters.

Incorrect again liar. You cannot prove whether there are multiple gods or even a Christian God. That goes for any religion and not just Christians.

You just hate the fact, you cannot say as FACT that it is a Christian God.
 
But there has to be one or the other, right? You are essentially giving up.

There are other choices. There could be multiple gods, there could be no god, or there could be one god that isn't ANY religion we have seen. And yes, there could be a Christian God, Muslim God, or whatever. Then there is the role that a God could play, is he constantly watching over us, did he create the universe and then leave elsewhere, etc. So no, there isn't just one or the other.


The point is that noone can say as FACT that any of those choices exist.
 
Back
Top Bottom