In a universe where creationists defend how nothing comes from nothing

So many of you may of heard the recent scientific announcement that black holes don't exist due to a mathematical proof explaining how suns are unable to turn into black holes. The same paper shows how the big bang couldn't have come from a singularity by which our universe birthed from a black hole itself.

phys.org...

In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe's black holes.

But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.

Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe. But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive.

Many physicists and astronomers believe that our universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang. However, if singularities do not exist, then physicists have to rethink their ideas of the Big Bang and whether it ever happened.
"Physicists have been trying to merge these two theories – Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum mechanics – for decades, but this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony," said Mersini-Houghton. "And that's a big deal."

Research paper - www.sciencedirect.com...

And this further paper recently coming out showing how the universe has no begging or end.

phys.org...

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end

In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.

Research paper - www.sciencedirect.com...

earthsky.org...

The Big Bang is often presented as some kind of explosion from an initial point, but actually the Big Bang model simply posits that the universe was extremely hot and dense when the universe was young. The model makes certain predictions, such as the existence of a thermal cosmic background, that the universe is expanding, the abundance of elements, etc. All of these have matched observation with great precision. The Big Bang is a robust scientific theory that isn’t going away, and this new paper does nothing to question its legitimacy.

Bottom line: Most of us understand the Big Bang as the idea that our entire universe came from a single point, what astrophysicists call a “singularity.” But we might not need a singularity to have a Big Bang, according to a new study by Ahmed Farag Ali in Egypt and coauthor Saurya Das in Canada. The catch – according to astrophysicist Brian Koberlein – is that, without the singularity, this model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before collapsing into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang.

So what we have here, is a universe that atheists pointed to over a hundred years ago that had no beginning or end, were actually right all along. Who were thought to be wrong later, due to the findings of a universe with a big bang which implied a beginning. But now we've found that the big bang wasn't at all the beginning, but that the universe was around forever, where until very recently - 14 billion years ago, when it collapsed.

What this means for creations whom use this as undeniable evidence backed by both their bible and science that god exists, is the only evidence they ever had is gone for good. What we now find, is that there is absolutely no singularity, where there's no space and time where god hangs out with his angel buddies partying hard downing shots.

Creationists are now left with nothing to go on and will fight with every tooth and nail for that singularity, just wait ^^

If anything, creationist should be worried about why their ever loving God put them on this unforgiving planet?

Sounds like God has a beef, rather then granting us the wonders of heaven and letting Satan run rampant on this earth or in this life.

Always trying to prove there is no God with science is laughable.

Why don't you just enjoy and explore these new theories, why does this have to get twisted into a hypothetical proof of the lack of a supreme being.

Enjoy your atheism, and I will enjoy my relationship with my God.

You will never prove to me there is no God, and I will never prove to you there is one.

Why not just post this theory without the anti-God Hyperbole.

a reply to: andre18

I'm sorry, the thread is nice, but those studies are poppycock. Flawed methodology. It's honestly really starting to bother me, I think we've reached a point where we've got more bogus studies (simply looking to accept grant money) than legitimate ones.

I always preferred the Steady State idea of old Fred Hoyle. Big Bangers though prospered as our technology and new theories kind of came together and pointed in the direction of the Big Bang singularity. Now though as we are coming to understand just how really freeking huge this place is, all of this coming from one little speck is getting harder and harder to believe.
Back in the 50s and 60s before the BB idea took off Hoyle and others postured this Steady State idea and it was becoming the accepted line of research but was let to drift as the BB idea took shape. Now it appears as if things might be swinging back.

I"m supposing that as the idea of a Steady State drifts back in and scientists get about trying to explain everything in light of it, somewhere down the line we will have a new perspective on the Singularity, one that does not postulated everything coming from it but rather that it was some other manner of event.

But expecting the creationists to go away is I think rather hopeless. In western religion, the idea that everything has a beginning and hence end, is smudged around in different ways to explain Gods work. But in many Eastern religions, the idea that everything has been all along in this Steady State is perfectly acceptable. Or at least this how I have come to underatand it all.

The skies, the mountains, the rivers, the forests, the deserts, and all the animals. Do you think we all evolved from a single cell? Incredibly complex, no. Evolution is stupid. Science? Eating and mating created all the wonders of life. Consciousness and language, and civilization. With all the wonders of life, how can you claim what some nerdy geek wants to imagine is so. I don't think we can discover the birth of a universe with a "theory" called the Big Bang. There was nothing then an explosion then something. Let the nerds come to whatever conclusion they want with a black board and chalk. And physics. People are stupid. These laws we set up to govern us. Doesn't sound like they are any closer to asking the big questions like why are we here or why is anything here then they were before.

a reply to: stosh64

Oh i concur most agreeably that using science to defend a persons faith is stupid, but that's what a lot of religious people do. And for those many, this is a giant well placed slap in the face.

originally posted by: stosh64
Always trying to prove there is no God with science is laughable.

Why don't you just enjoy and explore these new theories, why does this have to get twisted into a hypothetical proof of the lack of a supreme being.

Enjoy your atheism, and I will enjoy my relationship with my God.

You will never prove to me there is no God, and I will never prove to you there is one.

Why not just post this theory without the anti-God Hyperbole.

I am not religious or a creationist, but I agree with everything you said.

Trying to use science to browbeat people with opposing viewpoints serves no purpose other than to stroke the ego.

a reply to: stosh64

Honestly I am really freaking tired of the Christian hating on this site. Is denying ignorance subtly attacking believers? Like children, seriously.

So even though in the same article that you've pointed out, scientists are saying that they were wrong that the black holes couldn't be formed by collapsing stars, the same scientists who are constantly changing their minds about things (apart from Pluto being a planet) are now saying that this universe has just always BEEN HERE and you are accepting that as fact? Okay, if that's how you wish to see it then okay, congratulations you should find yourself content and relaxed about the universe and where it and everything else within it came from and to you I say enjoy.

Now think about that for a second - A universe that has always been and will always be. It doesn't have a beginning like everything else in the universe. A universe that will never end or die like everything else in the universe. Before you or any atheists begin to pat themselves on the back and wag their fingers saying 'We were right' lets just wait a couple weeks months or years before you do that because I can promise you scientists will change their mind again about this.

My take is that the universe had a beginning it must have, nothing in the universe or in the laws of the universe allows for things to just be, they have to have been coursed by something (as far as I know). There is no eternal life just long spans of existence before death. Even stars die in a way (though I see it as more of universal recycling) So yeah I believe that the universe had a beginning. When or how it began I don't know, maybe there is a being out there who made it or maybe it is something that willed itself to life, here this is what my niece wrote for a school science class about the universe -

(I've changed the words a little to make it easier to read for people not used to her speech)

Before the universe there was a mind (she wrote brains) and they moved through the NO SPACE, (which she describes as being like wading through a swamp or a bucket of custard). but there were only a few of them and they were bored because they never really got to see each other so in the end after a long time they decided to blow themselves up and from their deaths came the universe.

That's what she wrote. She is nine years old and got a D with the comment 'Great imagination but completely unlikely'. She wasn't upset because she said she can believe what she wants.


Sorry for the long post but It irks me to my core when people who don't believe seem to do whatever they can to try to change the minds of those who do. Just leave it be. If they believe in a god/s then let them do so it doesn't really harm you (I know radicals etc. but I'm ignoring that for a minute) even people who don't believe have a faith because they truly and utterly don't believe that there is nothing after death, that in itself is a belief but of course they don't like to see it like that.

Anyway, long post, but I had to reply.

So all of the empirical scientific prof of the big bang was not scientific or was not empirical ? I see ...So now the 14 or so billion years works out to what % of a universe that has always existed ? I see ...Got to love science and how they can move the goal posts to try and explain empirically without a doubt . That takes much more faith then I am able to muster , but have at it and enjoy .

originally posted by: SpongeBeard
a reply to: andre18

I'm sorry, the thread is nice, but those studies are poppycock. Flawed methodology. It's honestly really starting to bother me, I think we've reached a point where we've got more bogus studies (simply looking to accept grant money) than legitimate ones.

And you know this how? You personally reviewed the studies and found the flaws? I'd like to know your viewpoints on why they are poppycock.

a reply to: andre18



It is said that God has always existed and will always exist.

According to the Bible, God was alone and created a son and later created the universe,

so the universe is a piece of Himself.

The raw materials of the universe came from a God with no beginning and no end.


Your point is what, exactly?

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: stosh64

Honestly I am really freaking tired of the Christian hating on this site. Is denying ignorance subtly attacking believers? Like children, seriously.

You know when Christianity acts like Christ was a helpless pup, that needs to feel sorry for, when really the man in the story was beaten, spit on, and demonized by a hundred of his own neighbors and friends, but yet maintained the pride and dignity of a Lion, and did not yield or resorted to violence.

I think Christianity a bunch of sheep looking for an Alpha male, a wolf in sheep clothing, or sheep in a lions pelt that just waiting to take an opportunity, unlike the big man that got crucified or was believed to have died for...alone btw.

a reply to: dusty1


Is that true? About God always being and then creating a son then the universe? Because if that is then my nieces explanation has just freaked me the hell out. Let me break it down - If you've read my earlier post about what she said about some brains or minds being alive before the universe which you could say was GOD there alone then creating a SON or a second mind to live with but because they saw so little of each other they destroyed themselves and created the universe.

I don't often talk about religion with her and don't think she follows any real religion but man that has freaked me out. So again my question is, is that true? If it is then I've got some questions for my niece and see what else she says.

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: stosh64

Oh i concur most agreeably that using science to defend a persons faith is stupid, but that's what a lot of religious people do. And for those many, this is a giant well placed slap in the face.

I don't believe I called anyone 'stupid'. It is a term I have learned, over my limited time on this earth, that can come back and bite you. Usually, the one throwing that term around, is found lacking in the cognitive ability to properly state their case. The lazy mans retort.
Or false bravado in hopes of silencing opposition without the need for a more literate, enlightened response.

After all The point of your thread was about the science? Or the lack of your perceived intelligence of the Faithfull?

As for your ' this is a giant well placed slap in the face'. While you may hope that is the case, I am afraid you are vastly overrating your evaluation of the posted information.

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: andre18



It is said that God has always existed and will always exist.

According to the Bible, God was alone and created a son and later created the universe,

so the universe is a piece of Himself.

The raw materials of the universe came from a God with no beginning and no end.


Your point is what, exactly?

Ya there is no nothing from nothing belief by creationists, this thread starts out with a false presumption so it is all bogus.

a reply to: andre18

FYI : The 'study' of Professor Mersini-Houghton has already been discussed in another thread :
Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths

My perspective on the topic was :

If the demonstration is correct and the black holes exist, this proves nothing but the total irrelevance of all the science and math used to perform the study ... And my guess is that this was not the original goal of the author.

originally posted by: letmeon
The skies, the mountains, the rivers, the forests, the deserts, and all the animals. Do you think we all evolved from a single cell? Incredibly complex, no. Evolution is stupid. Science? Eating and mating created all the wonders of life. Consciousness and language, and civilization. With all the wonders of life, how can you claim what some nerdy geek wants to imagine is so. I don't think we can discover the birth of a universe with a "theory" called the Big Bang. There was nothing then an explosion then something. Let the nerds come to whatever conclusion they want with a black board and chalk. And physics. People are stupid. These laws we set up to govern us. Doesn't sound like they are any closer to asking the big questions like why are we here or why is anything here then they were before.

Ok, but to be fair, so far the best we have in answering some of these big questions is found from scientific study whether it's Evolution, Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, etc. Doesn't mean that they have it all right yet or anything but from what we've got so far that's the best interpretation of the data that we have. So if it's all "stupid" as you put it, then what else is there as an alternative that also has some solid evidence behind it??

If I was child, son, or disciple of Satan, the adversary. and would want to insult the will of Christ followers, and the big man.

I would say..."Christianity a bunch of sissy little girls, that also worship and is run by a sissy little girl that couldn't fight back"

Hows that for insulting the divine? Any wanna crucify me for it or beat the devil out of me?