davidylan:

How would the earth exist in "potential"? Please explain.

Given that the earth if broken down to bits, to atoms, still is matter which also was compounded in the point of singularity. In other words, The Earth basically is made up of matter

Kay 17:

Given that the earth if broken down to bits, to atoms, still is matter which also was compounded in the point of singularity. In other words, The Earth basically is made up of matter

My guy, you are not arguing with a 3 yr old here.
Everything on earth is made up of matter... what told "matter" to form the earth, a toad or a blade of grass? Did all that happen by random chance?

davidylan:

I'm asking you... educate me please since you logical scientists know it all.
You are claiming that the earth must have ALWAYS existed in one form or the other NOT because you have proof that this is actually the case but because LOGICALLY it is impossible for the earth to appear out of nothing. Well you tell us what evidence underlies your blind faith in this idea.

You have been skipping my question though - when did time and space begin?

The logical necessity is compelling enough to throw aside your assumptions that everything is created from nothing.

Space and Time are pawns in the Universe, would HaVE to exist in some other form other than their present state/form.

Kay 17:

The logical necessity is compelling enough to throw aside your assumptions that everything is created from nothing.

Space and Time are pawns in the Universe, would HaVE to exist in some other form other than their present state/form.

African atheists are just 'follow follow ' of the white man, spouting out stuff they have no clue about.

davidylan:

My guy, you are not arguing with a 3 yr old here.
Everything on earth is made up of matter... what told "matter" to form the earth, a toad or a blade of grass? Did all that happen by random chance?

you are making loads of unjustified assumptions still. That everything functions/works on a command, why that is so, you haven't explained.

Why gravity operates, it operates because it is within its character to do so. Entities are empty or void of characters. The multiple interactions among all entities is refered to as physical laws.

frosbel:


African atheists are just 'follow follow ' of the white man, spouting of stuff they have no clue about.

And I have always agreed with that.

Kay 17: you are making loads of unjustified assumptions still. That everything functions/works on a command, why that is so, you haven't explained.

Why gravity operates, it operates because it is within its character to do so. Entities are empty or void of characters. The multiple interactions among all entities is refered to as physical laws.

And gravity just happened to exist, right ?

Kay 17:

The logical necessity is compelling enough to throw aside your assumptions that everything is created from nothing.

Space and Time are pawns in the Universe, would HaVE to exist in some other form other than their present state/form.

So in other words... you do not know? you're just following blindly right?
You really are a confused fellow.

Kay 17: you are making loads of unjustified assumptions still. That everything functions/works on a command, why that is so, you haven't explained.

Why gravity operates, it operates because it is within its character to do so. Entities are empty or void of characters. The multiple interactions among all entities is refered to as physical laws.

So why exactly did gravity start to exist? Just by rare chance that it might need to keep humans or objects on a planet that probably didnt even exist (except in the form of matter)? My guy, you really have more faith than i do.

davidylan:

Where is the proof for the big b[i]a[/i]ng dude. spill the beans.

Are you still asking this question? Here let me list a few for you since you seem to have forgotten.

1. The cosmic microwave background.
2. The Hubble deep-field images.
3. The abundance of light elements in the universe.

thehomer:

Are you still asking this question? Here let me list a few for you since you seem to have forgotten.

1. The cosmic microwave background.
2. The Hubble deep-field images.
3. The abundance of light elements in the universe.

Mumbo Jumbo !

frosbel:

And gravity just happened to exist, right ?

Gravity is the attraction of physical bodies towards each other. It simply occurs where there is mass.

frosbel:

And gravity just happened to exist, right ?

If you were expecting it to pop out or be created from nothing, good question.

Everything has a character, that's how we identify them and decipher their functions. However if everything is deemed to have an origin owed to Nothing, then it would have to be "defineless" and void as Nothing, which they aren't. Thus conclusively proves they always existed. Besides Existence can't be said to have a beginning.

thehomer:

Gravity is the attraction of physical bodies towards each other. It simply occurs where there is mass.

How did gravity come about , dear Sir !

frosbel:

Mumbo Jumbo !

Are you confused? You guys cry for evidence. It is presented and you cry that you don't understand it. What is wrong with you?

thehomer:

Are you still asking this question? Here let me list a few for you since you seem to have forgotten.

1. The cosmic microwave background.
2. The Hubble deep-field images.
3. The abundance of light elements in the universe.

these guys are even more flummoxed than they care to accept. And the above explain what? It looks more to me that those are explanations in search of a question.

frosbel:

How did gravity come about , dear Sir !

What do you mean?

thehomer:

Gravity is the attraction of physical bodies towards each other. It simply occurs where there is mass.

why did gravity need to exist BEFORE the existence of the earth? Obviously the earth could not have existed before gravity since it would be unable to maintain its place in orbit no?

davidylan:

So in other words... you do not know? you're just following blindly right?
You really are a confused fellow.

The preexisting form they were in?? I don't know.

davidylan:

these guys are even more flummoxed than they care to accept. And the above explain what? It looks more to me that those are explanations in search of a question.

They are lines of evidence for the Big Bang. You were asking for them a short while ago.

Kay 17:

If you were expecting it to pop out or be created from nothing, good question.

Everything has a character, that's how we identify them and decipher their functions. However if everything is deemed to have an origin owed to Nothing, then it would have to be "defineless" and void as Nothing, which they aren't. Thus conclusively proves they always existed. Besides Existence can't be said to have a beginning.

You drew this conclusion from the premise above? My guy you indeed have no idea what you are talking about. Another ignorant humanist bleating about a science he does not understand... all so as to avoid being held accountable for his actions.

davidylan:

why did gravity need to exist BEFORE the existence of the earth? Obviously the earth could not have existed before gravity since it would be unable to maintain its place in orbit no?

Your question shows either your bias or hubris. The earth is not the aim of the existence of the universe you know.

Kay 17:

The preexisting form they were in?? I don't know.

So how did you know that it existed in any form pre what it looks like now? Where you just pulling that out of thin air?

thehomer:

Your question shows either your bias or hubris. The earth is not the aim of the existence of the universe you know.

Daft. My question had nothing to do with the aim of the existence of the universe.

1. The earth or any other planet out there requires the force of gravity to stay in orbit.

2. If gravity came first then WHY since there was no rational logic for a useless force to exist?

3. If the planets came first then what kept them in orbit or did they float up there after the appearance of the force of gravity?

3. or did gravity always exist?

davidylan:

So how did you know that it existed in any form pre what it looks like now? Where you just pulling that out of thin air?

Because it would be a logical absurdity and contradiction if it didn't.

thehomer:

They are lines of evidence for the Big Bang. You were asking for them a short while ago.

What we have are explanations in search of a theory to justify. No evidence that a big b[i]a[/i]ng will create anything as complex as the earth and life forms.

Kay 17:

Because it would be a logical absurdity and contradiction if it didn't.

but you dont know right? you're just going with blind faith here no?

davidylan:

Daft. My question had nothing to do with the aim of the existence of the universe.

1. The earth or any other planet out there requires the force of gravity to stay in orbit.

2. If gravity came first then WHY since there was no rational logic for a useless force to exist?

3. If the planets came first then what kept them in orbit or did they float up there after the appearance of the force of gravity?

3. or did gravity always exist?

Physical laws are responsible, though gravity is necessary for the Earth to form but there has to be an interaction btw the characters of Gravity and Earth's components.

davidylan:

What we have are explanations in search of a theory to justify. No evidence that a big b[i]a[/i]ng will create anything as complex as the earth and life forms.

And how is this similar to blind faith?

Kay 17:

Physical laws are responsible, though gravity is necessary for the Earth to form but there has to be an interaction btw the characters of Gravity and Earth's components.

What came first... the earth or the physical laws? Explain pls.

davidylan:

Daft. My question had nothing to do with the aim of the existence of the universe.

Dumb. Your question implies that the earth could have been in place without gravity.

davidylan:
1. The earth or any other planet out there requires the force of gravity to stay in orbit.

Yes.

davidylan:
2. If gravity came first then WHY since there was no rational logic for a useless force to exist?

You have managed to hit scientific bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question. Your question is like asking why opposite magnetic poles should attract when there is no rational logic for it to happen.

davidylan:
3. If the planets came first then what kept them in orbit or did they float up there after the appearance of the force of gravity?

The planets don't float and they couldn't have come first.

davidylan:
3. or did gravity always exist?

Gravity existed as matter came into existence.

davidylan:

What we have are explanations in search of a theory to justify. No evidence that a big b[i]a[/i]ng will create anything as complex as the earth and life forms.

First, the Big Ban.g event has no MIND, so wouldn't create anything. That's your intrusive assumption into the way.

The BB though shows a cause: point of singularity to the present Universe.