Somebody

 go get brother Brian again.

"IT"S NOT COMPLICATED!"

Nothing happens.

That something didn't cause it to happen.

This is what we OBSERVE.

This is a universal truth.

No exceptions anywhere.

Something outside of it

had to have caused it.

This is exactly what Hawking was trying to get around

by stating 

(paraphrasing):

The laws of nature were the same before time.

And he used the south pole as an example.

The physical laws past it are still the same as they were at that point

so they don't matter.

(South Pole.)

Therefore you don't need an outside agent to have caused it.

The laws of nature did.

Well guess what?

CREATING A UNIVERSE 

AND WALKING PAST THE SOUTH POLE?

AINT EXACTLY IN THE SAME LEAGUE

 WITH EACH OTHER

DIPSHITS!

CREATING THE UNIVERSE 

CREATED YOUR SOUTH POLE.

CAN YOU NOT SEE 

THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE DOING 

(Most of them anyway)

IS TRYING TO FIND A 

A WAY AROUND 

WHAT THEY DONT LIKE?

Something outside of it

had to have caused it.

"AN INFINATE SERIES OF CAUSES"

Like what?

Oh I don't know 

the moon could have been made of Bleu Cheese 

they want you to believe.

No thanks.

Ill stick with my belief system.

Yours takes way more faith 

than I got.

Truth.

Nobody can disprove it.

Over 2000 years now.

They say the laws of physics did it.

The theologian says 

"Great.

How were they there?

How did they "know" 

to be there?

What "caused" them?

Everything has a cause.

Except one.

One is the uncaused cause.

The first cause 

of all first causes.

The uncreated creator.

Eternal.

Outside of time.

(And as the only uncreated being in the universe?

He is the moral authority

and righteous judge there of!

Deal with it now, cause you gonna have to eventually anyway.)

The Beginning and the End.

The Alpha and the Omega.

The conquering lion 

of the tribe of Judah.

Lord God almighty in the flesh,

CHRIST JESUS OF NAZARATH

KING OF KINGS 

AND LORD OF LORD

ALL HAIL THE POWER
OF HIS HOLY NAME!

There is simply nothing else

that explains your world

and how it was created

and how life got here

and what our purpose is

and what is going on now

with the confluences of crises we face

that will only get resolved with Christ return.

Everything else is working out 

just like it said.

The Origin of the Universe, Stephen Hawking, with commentary of course :-)

 THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

STEPHEN HAWKING

Early accounts of the origin of the world were attempts to answer the questions we all ask, Why are we here? Where did we come from The answer generally given was that humans were of comparatively recent sign, because it must been obvious even at early times, that the human race was improving  in knowledge and technology. So it can't have been around that long, or it would have progressed even more. On the other hand, the physical surroundings. like mountains and rivers, change very little in a human lifetime. They were therefore thought to be a constant background, and either to have existed forever as an empty landscape to have been created at the same time as the humans.

Not everyone however, was happy with the idea that the universe had a beginning. For example, Aristotle, the most famous of the Greek philosophers, believed the universe had existed forever Something eternal is more perfect than something created. He suggested the reason we see progress, was that floods, or other natural disasters, had repeatedly set civilization back so the beginning

If one  believed that the universe had a beginning, then the obvious question was, what happened before the beginning What was God doing before He made the world uncid? Was He preparing Hell for people who ask such questions? The problem of whether or out the universe lad a beginning was a great concern to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. He felt there were logical contradictions, in Antimonies, either way. If the universe had a beginning, why did it wait an infinite time before it began? He called that the thesis. On the other hand, if the universe had existed forever, why did it take an infinite time to reach the present stage He called that the antithesis. Both the thesis, and the antithesis, depended on Kam's assumption, along with almost everyone else, that time was Absolute. That is to say, it went from the infinite past, to the infinite future, independently of any unseen universe that might or might not exist in this background

This is still the picture in the minds of many scientists today However. in 1915. Einstein introduced his revolutionary General Theory of Relativity. In this, space and time were no longer a fixed background to events Instead, they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the South Pole It is not defined.

If the universe was essentially unchanging in time as was generally assumed before the 1920s, there would be no reason that time should not be defined arbitrarily far hack. Any so-called beginning of the universe would be artificial, in the serve that one could extend the history hack to earlier times. Thus, it might be that the universe was created last year, but with all the memories and physical evidence to look like it was much old er. This raises deep philosophical questions about the meaning of existence. 

(Simple

To give love.)

I shall deal with these by adopting what is called the positivist approach, 

In this, 

the idea is that 

we interpret the input from our senses 

in terms 

of a model 

we make of the world. 

(Translation?

I'm an Atheist.

There 

CAN NOT

be a God.

I will build my models accordingly,

be they molecular evolution

or the creation of the universe.

Atheist scientist (and others) are all together to quick to point out The anthropic principle (Which simply says that we, observers, exist. And that we exist in this Universe, and therefore the Universe exists in a way that it allows observers to come into existence.) but never like to point out the inherent biases in the computer models they create and they think you are to stupid to understand that they do this.)

One cannot ask whether the model represents reality, only whether it works. A model is a good model, if it interprets a wide range of observations, in terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested, and possibly falsified, by observation.

(Paraphrasing my buddy Ethan here

"MOST inflationary models that work

predict a multiverse."

If there wasn't a built in bias in the models to start with?

Then why are we hearing nothing about the inflationary models that work that dont predict a multiverse?

Nothing.

Not one article anywhere that I have seen in ths last 10 years.

These types are putting in their own biases

("THERE CAN NOT BE A GOD")

and then not sharing with you the models that don't support their inflationary models)

In turns of the positivist approach one can compare two models the universe. One in which the universe was created last year, and one in which the universe existed much longer. The Model in witch the universe existed for longer than a year can explain things like identical wins that have a common cause more than a year ago

On the other hand, the model in which the universe was created last year cannot explain such events. So the first model is better. One cannot ask whether the universe really existed before a year ago, or just appeared to In the positivist approach, they are the same.

(Oh we most certainly can ask if the Universe really existed before a year ago

Do they ever stop to think 

that maybe their approach 

(which makes such assumptions) 

is wrong to begin with?

Positivistic much?

“all birds can fly, and penguins can’t fly, so penguins aren’t birds”, the premise that “all birds can fly” is false, since some birds can’t fly, and this renders the argument logically unsound.

Good science

is never built 

on faulty logic.)

In an unchanging universe, there would be no natural starting The situation changed radically however when Edwin Hubble began to make observations with the hundred-inch (2.5m) telescope on Mount Wilson. In the 1920. Hubble food that stars are not uniformly distributed throughout space, but are gathered together in vast collections called galaxies.

By measuring the light from galaxies  Hubble could determine their velocities. He was expecting that as many galaxies would  be moving towards us, as were moving away. This is what one would have in a universe that was unchanging with time. But to his surprise, Hubble found. that nearly all the galaxies were moving away from us. Moreover, the further galaxies were from us, the faster they were moving away The universe was not unchanging with time, as everyone had thought previously, it was expanding. The distance between distant galaxies was increasing with time.

The expansion of the universe was one of the most important intellectual discoveries of the 20th century, or of any century. It transformed the debate about whether the universe had a beginning, if galaxies are moving apart now, they must have been closer together in the past. If their speed had been constant, they would all have been on top of one another about 15 billion years ago. Was this the beginning of the universe?

(No, its what happened to it when it was in a prior, hotter, condensed state. Now, how it got to that "prior, hotter, condensed state"? We will never know because the inflation of it VIOLENTLY destroyed all evidence of what led to it.

Ecclesiastes 3:11

God Set Eternity in the Heart of Mankind

He has made everything appropriate in its time.

He has also set eternity in their heart, 

without the possibility that mankind will find out 

the work which God has done 

from the beginning even to the end.

If you've been following along you know biblical commentators and scholars were talking about the universe expanding as far back as the 1200's.)

Many scientist were still unhappy with the universe having a beginning, because it seemed to imply that physics  broke down. 

(Poor babies, 

so sorry

The laws of physics you worship aren't eternal.

Their creator is.

Grow up maybe?)

One would have to invoke an outside agency, to determine how the universe began.

(Poor babies)

They therefore advanced theories in which the universe was expanding at the present time, but didn't have a beginning, 

(Trying to create a reality/theory?

Just because you don't like the truth that you observe?

ISNT SCIENCE 

AND DOESNT EVER WORK!

IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL

AND BASED ON WHAT WE OBSERVE

NOT:

"HERES WHAT WE OBSERVE JIM

AND I AM JUST PHILOSOPHICALLY OPPOSED 

TO THE IDEA 

SO LETS JUST COME UP WITH SOMETHING ELSE

AND HOPE IT WORKS."

One was was the Steady State theory, proposed by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle in 1948.

In the Steady State theory as galaxies moved apart, the idea was that new galaxies world form from matter that was supposed to be continually being created throughout space. The universe would have existed forever and would have looked she same at all times. This last property had the great virtue from a positivist point of view, of being a definite prediction that could be tested by observation. 

(Unlike the multiverse)

The Cambridge radio astronomy group, under Martin Ryle, did a survey of weak radio sources in the early 1990's. These were distributed fairly uniformly across the sky indicating that must of the sources lay outside our galaxy. The weaker sources would be further away, on average.

The Study State theory predicted the shape of the graph of the number of sources against source strength But the observations showed more faint sources than predicted, indicating that the density of sources wat higher in the past. This was contrary to the basic assumption of the Steady State theory, that everything was constant in time. For this, and other reasons, the Steady State theory was abandoned.

Another attempt to avoid the universe having a beginning 

(They have hated it from day one.

Certain "scientist" that is

Because it violates their faith based system of:

THERE CAN NOT BE A GOD!

And they are going to do anything and everything to convince you 

that it did not have a beginning regardless of what they observe.

Then, now or in the future.

ONES AN ACCIDENT

(That's two attempts).

TWO IS A TREND.

THREE IS A PATTERN.

was the suggestion that there was a previous contracting phase, but because of rotation and and local irregularities, the matter would not all fall in the same point. Instead different parts of the matter would miss each other and the universe would expand again, with the density remaining finite Two Russians, Lifshutz and Khalatnikov actually charmed to have proved that general contraction without exact symmetry would always lead to bounce, with the density remaining finite. This result was very convenient for Marxist-Leninist dialectical materialism, because it avoided awkward questions about the creation of the universe, It therefore became an article of faith for Soviet Scientist.

When Lifshutz and Khalatnikov published their claim I was a 21 old research student, booking for something to complete my PhD thesis. I didn't believe their so-called proof, and set out with Roger Penrose to develop new mathematical techniques to study the question. We showed that the universe couldn't bounce If Einstein's General Theory of Relativity its is correct, there will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and spacetime curvature, where time his a beginning.

(Nobody has yet disproven Einstein's General Theory of relativity, therefore: there will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and spacetime curvature, where tine his a beginning. Hawking and Penrose spent a good deal of the rest of their careers trying to disprove what they had just proven.) 

Saw a thing a lil while back and the guy was saying math knows more about the universe than man does. The interviewer ask him what he meant and he said something to the effect of, "There are mathematical theorems out there that explain things about the universe that we dont know yet, so math in a sense math knows more about the universe than we do. 

It goes right to my point about math being the language of God that he used to speak the universe into existence with, if it exist? It has a mathematical component to it. Height, width, depth, volume, mass, velocity, weight, some kind of mathematical component.

So riddle me this: If math knows more about the universe than man does? How is math a man made construct?

Good luck with that one :-).

So much emphasis is put on theorems by these types. Where's the theorem that proves Hawking and Penrose wrong then? It simply Does not exist. That's something else you never hear about I wonder why? 

TIME HAD A BEGINING.

I'm pretty sure there is a book that says:

IN THE BEGINING...yup...pretty sure.)

Observational evidence to confirm the idea that the universe had a very dense beginning came in October 1985, a few months after my first singularity result, with the discovery of a faint hackaround microwaves throughout space. These microwaves are the same as those in your microwave oven, but very much less powerful. They would heal your pizza only ta minas 271.J°C. not much good  defrosting the pizza, let alone cooking it. 

("Using what is called the positivist approach" mentioned above? Is that really a pizza? Or does it just seem like one? Cause they are not both the same to me. I like my pizza to be a pizza, not merely to "SEEM" like its one. Sorry, had too :-).

You can actually observe these microwaves уourselves. Set your television to an empty channel. A low percent of the snow you see on the screen will be caused by the background of microwaves The only reasonable interpretation of the background is that it is radiation left over from an early very hot and dense state.. As the universe expanded the radiation would have cooled until it is just the faint remnant we observe today.

Although the singularity  theorems of Penrose und myself predicted that the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun. The equations of General Relativity would break down at the singularity Thus, Einstein's theory cannot predict how the universe will begin, but only how it will evolve once it has begun. There are two attitudes one can take to the results of Penrose and myself. One in that the way the universe begam is not within the realm of science. The other interpretation of our results, which is favored by most scientist, is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe. It has to he replaced by a more complete theory One would expect this anyway, because General Relativity does not take account of the small-scale structure of matter, which is governed by quantum theory. This does not matter normally, became the scale of the universe is enormous compared to the microscopic scales of quantum theory. But when the universe is the Planck size, a billion trillion trillionth of a centimeter, the two scales are the same, and quantum theory has to be taken into account,

("Einstein's theory cannot predict how the universe will begin, but only how it will evolve once it has begun."

Evolution, whether it be the beginning of the universe, or of life, 

NEVER EXPLAINS HOW IT GOT THERE TO START WITH

ONLY WHAT HAPPENS TO IT WHEN IT COMES ON THE SCENE!

And?

Again, if your initial premise is wrong? 

And that it cant possible be:

"that the way the universe begam is not within the realm of science"

Then anything else from that point simply will not matter.

A faulty premises never ends in a truthful conclusion.

Good science isn't based on bad logic.

Besides:

Ecclesiastes 3:11

God Set Eternity in the Heart of Mankind

He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, without the possibility that mankind will find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.

Job 38:4-11

“Where were you

when I laid the earth’s foundation?

    Tell me, if you understand.

Who marked off its dimensions? 

Surely you know!

    Who stretched a measuring line across it?

On what were its footings set,

    or who laid its cornerstone—

while the morning stars sang together

    and all the angels

(Sons of God just like in Genesis 6)

shouted for joy?

“Who shut up the sea behind doors

    when it burst forth from the womb,

when I made the clouds its garment

    and wrapped it in thick darkness,

when I fixed limits for it

    and set its doors and bars in place,

when I said,

‘This far you may come and no farther;

    here is where your proud waves halt’?

(See yesterdays post for what all the book has accurately predicted, and given all of that? Why would you doubt what is said above? And then consider:

Why we’ll never see back to the beginning of the Universe

"Unfortunately, only the final tiny-fraction-of-a-second of inflation remains to be seen, with anything that happened before "inflated away," removing any hope we have of discovering our Universe's original beginnings."

"A faulty premises never ends in a truthful conclusion.

Good science isn't based on bad logic."

In order to understand the Origin of the universe, we need to combine the General Theory of Relativity with Quantum theory. The best way doing so seems to be to use Feynman's idea of a sum over histories Richard Feynman was a colorful character, who played the bongo drums in a strip joint in Pasadena, sod was a brilliant physicist at the California Institute of Technology. He proposed than a system got from a state A to a state B by using every possible path or histoey.

("The best way doing so seems to be to use Feynman's idea of a sum over histories"

If you start with a faulty premises maybe.

How many more assumptions are you going to keep making Dr Hawking?

Just because something "seems to be" in no manner means it is until its PROVEN to be or, until there is just overwhelming evidence pointing in one particular direction that none of the other options have,

You are starting with faulty assumptions again.)

Each path, or history, has a certain amplitude or intensity, and the probability of the system going from A to 8 is given by adding up the  amplitudes for each path. There will be a history in which the moon is made of blue cheese but the amplitude is low, which is had news for mice.

Now Dr Hawking?

You have just shown what was the better premise:

A)There are two attitudes one can take to the results of Penrose and myself. One in that the way the universe begam is not within the realm of science.

OR?

B) The other interpretation of our results, which is favored by most scientist, is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe.

So the option that "most" scientist went with? allows for the probability that the moon can be made of Bleu Cheese?

Or the beginning of the universe is outside the realm of science?

Decision time.

Eternity is at stake.

I hope you choose wisely.

When your only option left?

Is that every conceivable option 

has to be allowed to be considered?

Then you sir 

(and all who believe this nonsense)

are simply out of options.)

The probability for a state of the universe at the present time is given by adding up de amplitudes for all the histories that and with that state. But how did the histories start? This is the Origin question in anther guise, Is the initial state of the universe determined by a law of science?

(Simply put, NO. because your and Penrose's theorems proved (and have not been disproven) that time had a beginning. If time doesn't exist yet? How can a "initial state of the universe (be) determined by a law of science"?

Ive said it all along,

they are worshiping the gift

(science)

and not acknowledging the giver.

It's a high form of Idolatry.

Putting something/anything

ahead or above Almighty God.)

In fact, this questions would arise even if the histories of the universe went back to the infinite past. But it is more immediate if the universe began only 15 billion years ago. The problem of what happens at the beginning of time is a bit like the question of what happened at the edge of the world, when people thought the world was flat. Is the world a flat plate, with the sea pouring over the edge? I have tested this experimentally: I have been round the world, and I love not fallen off.

As we all know, the problem of what happens at the edge of the world was solved when people realized that the world was not a flat plate, but a curved surface. Time, however, seems to be different: it appeared to he separate from space, and to be like a model railway track. If is had a beginning, there would have to be someone to set the trains going Einstein's General Theory of Relativity unified time and space as space-time, but time was still different from space, and was like a corridor which either had a beginning and end, or went on forever. However when one combines General Relativity with Quantum Theory, Jim Hartle and I realized that time can behave like another direction in space under extreme conditions. This means one can get rid of the problem of time

(Trying to disprove your own theorem much?

Who is it a problem for exactly?

And I apologize for the manner in which this is chopped up, 

its the screen shot to uploaded, to searched with optical character recognition, to cut and pasted, and edited to make sure the wording is correct etc. Basically what is cut out is, there is nothing any more south than the south pole. making whether or not there is or not a moot point. He is saying its the same with time, what came before is a moot point, which contradicts but does not disprove his earlier theorems with Penrose.)

a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the south pole Time, as measured in degrees of latitude, would have a beginning al the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point,, at least I have been told. I have been to Antarctica, but not to the South Pole 

The same lows of Nature hold at the South Pole, as in other places This would remove the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning that it would be a place where the normal laws of nature broke down.

(Why the objection still?

His own theorem proves it.

So the laws 0f nature existed before time then?

The laws of nature 

brought the universe into being?

It simply stupidity to try and work around a faulty premises.

The laws of nature have never brought anything into being.

We see this exactly nowhere.

The laws of nature only govern what already exist.

Everything that we see that exist?

Came forth 

(or from what came forth thereafter) 

in a fraction of a second from a hot dense state,

the start of time 

as his own singularity theorem(s) proves.

Nice try.

One is an accident

Two is a trend.

Three is a pattern.

"The beginning of the universe would be governed by the laws of science." 

(If his above statement is true then there is a whole new set of problems: 

 Where did they come from?

And how did they know when to show up?

And how were they designed so perfectly to govern what was just brought into existence?

Design implies a designer.

The laws of nature had to have been designed prior to the beginning of time which Dr Hawking says is a moot point. (Goes right to initial conditions that I talk about a lot)  and the moment in which all that was to exist was brought into being

Splain me that.)

The picture Jim Hartle and I developed of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe would he a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water.

The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe would be like the surfaces of the bubbles, Many small bubbles would appear and then disappear again. These woold correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size There are possible universes universes, but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, will grow to certain sine at which they are sale from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an incasing rate, and will form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever-increasing rate This is called inflation, like the way prices go up every year.

The world record the inflation was Germany after the Fine World War prices rose by a factor of ten million in a period of 18 months. But that was nothing compared to inflation in the early universe: the universe expanded by a factor of million trillion million in a tiny fraction of a second. 

(Created the heat that caused the light on day one.

Genesis 1:3

 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. )

Unlike inflation in prices, inflation in the early universe was a very good thing. It produced a very large and uniform universe, just as we observe. However, it would not be completely uniform. In the sum over histories, histories that are very slightly irregular  will have almost as high probabilities as the completely uniform and regular history. The theory therefore predicts that the early universe is likely to be slightly nonuniform. These irregularities would produce small variations in the intensity of the microwave background from different directions. The microwave background has been observed by the Map satellite, and was found to have exactly the kind of variations predicted. So we know we are on the right lines.

(News flash:

It was solid state and static till it was proved that it wasn't.

It was created from a bounce till it proved that it wasn't.

It wasn't expanding till it proved that it was.

And early galaxies like the ones just found by the JWST weren't supposed to be able to form in the early universe until we found out they did.

These guys constantly get stumped over and over by what they see that they didn't think was supposed to be and they never ever blame it on the faulty assumptions of their built in biases ingrained in their "models" or their faulty premises,

mainly:

THER CANT BE A GOD.)

The regularities in the curly universe will means that some regions will have slightly higher density than others. The gravitational attraction of the extra density will slow the expansion of the region, and can eventually cause the region to collapse to form galaxies and stars. So look well at the map of the microwave sky; It is the blueprint for all the structure in the universe. 

(Blueprints don't create themselves from nothing.

Information always comes from an intellect.

It shows design and thus is the product of a designer.

We are the product of question fluctuations is the very early universe.

(Gerald Schroeder agrees with you.

(As do I)

God really does play dice.

(This is the part these guys just can not get because it is outside of:

"the idea that 

we interpret the input 

from our senses 

in terms of a model 

we make of the world."

And it does not include: 

Omnipotent:

om·nip·o·tent

/ämˈnipədənt/

adjective

adjective: omnipotent

(of a deity) 

having unlimited power; 

able to do anything.

If God really does play dice as Dr Hawking suggest? He only does so because he knows the outcome in advance. Who but the author of time would know such things? These things are just outside of the atheist mindset.

This point is also illustrated by something else Mr. Hawking stated:

"Time didn't exist before the Big Bang, 

so there is no time for God to make the universe in." 

An eternal 

(exist outside of time) 

transcendent 

(transcends the laws of nature), 

omnipotent 

(all powerful all knowing) 

entity is not bound by anything.

let alone time.

Hawking has demonstrated he simply doesn't understand these concepts. They are simply outside his self chosen world view:

"we interpret the input 

from our senses 

in terms of a model 

we make of the world."

Sucks for him these days I assure you.)

We have made tremendous progress in cosmology in the last hundred sears. The General Theory of Relativity and the discovery of she expansion of the universe shattered the old picture of an ever existing, and ever lasting universe. Instead, general relativity predicted that the universe and time itself, would begin in the big hang. It also predicted that time would come to an end in black holes. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background and observations of black holes support these conclusions. This is a profound change in our picture of the universe and reality itself.

(I read that as:

There is an outside agent 

that created it all 

that wants you to know how it works 

before it all goes away.)

Although the General Theory of Relativity predicted that the universe mast have come from a period of high curvature in the past, it could not predict how the universe would emerge from the big bang. 

(Nothing ever will.

Much to their misliking?

 It is simply outside of science scope.

Why we’ll never see back to the beginning of the Universe

"Unfortunately, only the final tiny-fraction-of-a-second of inflation remains to be seen, with anything that happened before "inflated away," removing any hope we have of discovering our Universe's original beginnings."

Anything else?

Is pure conjecture.)

Thus, general relativity on its men cannot answer the central question in cosmology Why is the universe the way it is? 

(Because it was designed that way.

The order and precision give it away.

And the initial conditions.

And the physical constants.

And the matter antimatter asymmetry.

And its reaccelerated expansion.

And and and...)

However, IF general relativity is combined with quantum theory, it may he possible to predict how the universe would start. 

(Still waiting on those BTW.

And that's two pretty big qualifiers:

"IF"

and 

"may be possible")

It would initially expand at an ever-increasing rate During this so-called inflationary period, the marriage of the two theories predicted that small fluctuations would develop and lead to the formation of galaxies, stars, and all the other structure in the universe. This is confirmed by observations of small non-uniformities in the comic Microwave with exactly the predicted properties. So it seems we are on sur way to understanding the origin of the universe, though much more work will he needed. 

(Nothing has changed since he wrote that.

Nobody has disproven his (and Penrose) theorems about time having a beginning.

Nothing has disproven the three pronged argument for the big bang:

A) Cosmic background Radiation.

B)Red shift.

C) The abundance of light elements in the early universe.

Despite having had some great successes, nor everything is solved. We do not yet have a good theoretical understanding of the observations that the expansion of the universe is accelerating again, after a long period of slowing down.

(Theism:

belief in the existence of a god or gods, 

especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, 

intervening in it 

and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I think he intervenes in it sometimes

 just to fuck with these people,

I really do:

"Oh you got that figured out now do you?

Sweet

Now get a load of this shit :-):

Reacceleration of the universe.

Early galaxies that shouldn't have formed 

with the current models of galaxy formation 

Matter antimatter asymmetry etc,)

Without and an understanding, we cannot be sure of the future of the universe. 

(Yeah we can, there is a book that got more right than you sir.)

Will it in expand forever? ls inflation a law of Nature? Or will the universe eventually collapse  again?"

IN CLOSING:

"The new book On the Origin of Time reveals that 

the great late Stephen Hawking believed 

that the reductionistic paradigm he defended 

for much of his life is incorrect. 

Ultimately, Hawking felt that 

the mainstream narrative 

failed to explain:

“How the Universe 

could have created conditions 

so perfectly hospitable 

to life.” 

Its really simple.

"The universe" 

didn't create 

"the conditions so perfectly 

hospitable for life".

Your creator did.

I wonder where he thought his ability to even think about it all originated from?

Either there is a probability

(however small)

 that:

"the moon can be made of Bleu Cheese?"

Or?

The beginning of the universe is outside the realm of science?

Somebody queue Brother Brain for me:

"ITS NOT COMPLICATED!"

Reguarding

 

that last post?

Consider this:

GOP critics vow no more US aid for Ukraine

“If Ukraine thinks that it’s getting another $60 billion supplemental out of the United States Congress, there’s no way,” said Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), who led the opposition among Senate Republicans to pouring tens of billions of more dollars into the war effort.

(Not a big fan of Senator Vance by any stretch of the imagination

Im a former FDR Democrat

and currently a citizen of the Kingdom of God.

But Senator Vance is 100% correct in stating the following:)

“Fundamentally, 

we lack the capacity 

to manufacture 

the amount of weapons 

Ukraine needs us to supply 

to win the war,” 

Vance wrote in an essay 

that made waves on Capitol Hill."

That is 100% correct.

Somebody knew it years ago 

and planned accordingly.

Our adversaries are exploiting 

our weaknesses with ease these days.

Which brings me to another point.

In an article I read a few months ago the writer brought up the point:

"What kind of Superpower are you

if you cant supply your ally

with he weapons they need

to fight off an invasion?"

Answer?

Not one many are going to keep 

having allergenics with for very long.

Did I mention?

"While a single state growing fragile and terminating will usually be inconsequential for the wider world, the instability of a superpower, such as the US, could trigger a domino effect across borders."

 Why societies grow more fragile 

and vulnerable to collapse as time passes

?

How much longer are you gonna put off making a decision about the truth?

Romans 10:9

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus

and believe in your heart 

that God has raised Him from the dead, 

you will be saved.

(God judges your heart.

He knows if you believe or not.

No fakers will get through.)

One power created the universe.

(26 or so physical constants kinda gives that away)

One creator and owner of the life force.

(Dont even get me started on "the Author of life"

Pastor Bridgette, My church family, Honey, 

and the inasmuch group have already heard that :-).

Okay I'll make it short lol

Something wrote the genetic code 

in the DNA molecule 

that everything living thing 

that has ever existed 

on this planet

and used oxygen to live 

has had in their cells.)

My point is simply this:

The creator of the universe 

and the creator and owner 

of the life force 

are both the same transcendent entity.

Prime reality,

"Source"

is a fav of mine,

God.

Etc...

I'd wrap my head around it 

real quick like in a hurry if I was you.