FlatEarth":d7nyo6jo said:

mabus":d7nyo6jo said:

The Big Bang model tells us what happened to the universe and everything inside it, from the moment >AFTER< the universe began to expand. It says >NOTHING< about the moment before expansion began. Furthermore, no data whatsoever survives from the moment before expansion began.

How can you reach a logical conclusion with zero evidence and no supporting arguments?

To be a logical conclusion, you would need evidence that space and time did not exist before the big bang. Without it, I'm afraid that rather than a logical conclusion, it is simply nothing more than a wild guess.

You have chosen to ignore what I have been saying. Perhaps you don't buy into the BB theory, and that is your right, but it says

**space and time did not exist before the event**. The rest is logical, and, yes, there are several possible outcomes. I picked one.

Ok, let's go over this slowly. The Big Bang model is a mathematical model of the universe which mathematically calculates what happened to the universe in it's earliest calculable state.

I mean it isn't just a bunch of guys on their lunch break spitballing what they guestimate may have happened. There's mathematical equations which calculate physical interactions. When we say the BB theory says something happened, we're saying that the mathematic calculations work out to something explicit. The BB theory is a mathematical model, Do we agree on this?

We currently do not have a mathematical set of tools to describe the universe while it was a singularity, therefore, the only thing we can calculate is how the universe was and how it behaved once it stopped being a singularity.

Now, follow the logic here....

How can the Big Bang mathematical model calculate anything about the state or condition of the universe, at a point where we have no mathematical tools?

You're clearly in error here. The Big Bang model does not say anything at all about the universe as a singularity, just as no mathematical exists to say anything concrete about the inner workings of a singularity inside a black hole. Singularities are mathematical no man's lands where all our mathematical tools break down. It's very important that you understand this.

Now, once we agree that we can at present >KNOW NOTHING< about the inner conditions or workings inside a singularity, I'd really love to know how you can >LOGICALLY< say anything about it.

FlatEarth":d7nyo6jo said:

The misconception is that the BB theory allows for the existence of space and time before the event. It does not. Such ideas are not part of the BB theory, and are completely theoretical in nature. My position is based on the one accepted theory based on observations. That's it.

That's the thing....

The BB Theory neither allows for, nor rejects anything about the inner workings of a singularity. We do not have any mathematical tools to describe the conditions inside a singularity, and until we do, we can say nothing about them other than that they exist mathematically.

You are correct... any ideas about the inner workings of a singularity are not part of the BB theory, we do not have any mathematical tools to describe a singularity, therefore we cannot include singularities into the BB theory. We can say nothing about singularities until we develop those mathematical tools.

The problem is you >ARE< trying to extend the BB theory into singularities. You claim to know (without explaining how) what the precise conditions inside a singularity were (you claim it had no space and time for example). How could you know this? What mathematical calculations have you performed that show this to be true? The simple fact is there are no mathematical equations which show this, and therefore the statement is not a logical one, and unsupportable.