oxymoron.

except global warming/colling/climate change?

I am often reminded of a question posed by a simple man, a friend of mine who manages a Grocery store.

Who created Time? When did time begin? and Who and when did they/he say it starts ... NOW!!! Can you have negative time? Can you travel before time began? Time moves forward from when?

Causality indicated that there was a beginning. Cause - Effect.

The Cause would be the beginning the "effect: everything that came after.

Can light exist without darkness? Can up exist without down? Can the Universe exist without _________"

it doesn't seem to be as true as it once was. How did people ever come to terms with phrases such as "scientific consensus"?

I find this topic VERY fascinating, both from a religious and secular view point and all the arguments made on both sides.

Those who "believe," i.e. THEORIZE (no real proof), that Evolution started with a "Big Bang" have used this theory for decades to support Darwin and these theories that they say proves there is no God.

Then these same people due to the PROOF that the laws of physics do not support the big Bang now are trying to provide another theory, which totally destroys their first one on which they base evolution on.

Within my personal Christian beliefs there has never been any change.

The fossil records, and earth core samples PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that what was written in the Bible thousands of years before core samples were pulled, was 100% correct. From the order life appeared to DNA, i.e. Psalms 139:16 Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing,.." DNA often by science referred to as the "book of life."

Every time science goes through these exercises my personal faith and belief in God is strengthened. Just like the math scientists use that has been developed over centuries by INTELLIGENT men and not just evolved out of a bowl of Campbell's soup. So they continue to convince me the Universe MUST have been created by intelligent design. All of which is using COMPLETE reasoning to provide my belief, and not blind faith.

As a scientist, I learn and am excited when I prove a theory false, but it's not nearly as satisfying as proving something true.

Once, when asked, if she could succinctly explain "Objectivism," Rand answered: Its Metaphysics is "Existence exists; Epistemology that Reason is the ONLY absolute; Its Ethics consists of "rational self-interest;" and its Politics that of Laissez Faire Capitalism.

When you grasp the fact that when the unique absolutism of Reason is questioned, you must immediately deal with the problem of what internal capacity are you going to employ to question it? It is the same "internal" problem one encounters when questioning Existence, only in this instance it is applied externally.

Rand & Branden "nailed it." That of course does not mean we should ever stop the pursuit of understanding cause and effect. It simply means that in our endless quest we should be ever mindful to not confuse the order or the context.

I agree with you but I'm going to be bold enough to suggest that "impose" is too strong a word.

It's sensible and valid to form theories based on what you already know. As you said, the human experience is begin-exist-end so our scientific theories would tend to favor that model. The fantastic thing about science is that theories can be proven false and scientists shout Hoorah! and start on a new theory.

In geometry and in the universe, arrow heads in both directions, hmmmmmm. Did the line or which of the arrow heads came first?

This particular atheist won't enjoy the predictions one way or the other. What I will enjoy, if the science is correct, is the fact that human knowledge was advanced and we now have a better understanding of "the world" - meaning everything, all of reality.

Most people don't realize that scientists are just as excited to prove a theory false as they are to prove it's true. Both outcomes increase our knowledge.

As long as this answer is, it is the short answer and it does not make me wonder about a god.

First state your terms. In metaphysics the word “universe” means the total of that which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist. To quote Nathaniel Branden:

“To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction. If the cause exists, it is part of existence. If it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause outside of existence or anterior to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve. The fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual change.

“Just as the concept of causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole, so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole.

“In other words, the universe did not “begin,” it did not at some point in time “spring” into being. Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is in the universe, the universe is not in time.

“The person who asks: Where did existence come from? Or, What caused it? Is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or a mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle and seeks to explain it by reference to non-existence.

“Existence is all that exists. Non-existence does not exist. There is nothing for existence to have come out of. And nothing means nothing.

“If you are tempted to ask what’s outside the universe, recognize you are asking what’s outside of existence. And, that the idea of something outside of existence is a contradiction in terms. Nothing is outside of existence, and nothing is not just another kind of something, it is nothing. Existence exists. You cannot go outside it, you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists and only existence exists. There is no where else to go.”

Thanks for posting. I did see this article. Cosmology has gotten way ahead experimental evidence. This model is supposed to not need the embarrassment of dark matter and energy, which is a good start. I have become convinced that there are lots problems with the Big Bang model.

"It appear that science is never settled."

Heresy! ;)

That's what I love about real scientists. They are never afraid to challenge their own conclusions in search of a more perfect observation of Reality.

"In all the world, few indeed are those who have a clear insight into both mathematical analysis and how it does, and does not, fit physical phenomena."

I don't know who said it. I remember seeing many examples. This reminded me of it.

Everything in human experience has the "beginning-existence-ending" life cycle. So the brain has not evolved to understand the concept of existing forever. Maybe it never will understand.
I view the big bang theory as humans imposing this model on the universe to make it acceptable to our simple brain.

I'm a particular advocate of this idea of the Universe. Thanks for posting.

The atheists will enjoy the predictions of this model. It does explain several of the limitations of Einstein's general relativity quite well, according to the article. I will readily admit that this isn't my area of expertise.

The Hallings will be quite interested in this, especially Dale.

That is very interesting, thanks for putting it up. Time is only a dimension. Beginnings and endings are only measurements along that axis of observation. I'll have to read their actual paper which is included at the end.