Lets talk about the big bang.

Why is it important to you? Why not just be interested in another opinion from yours and try to understand it?

It's actually rather difficult to pinpoint truth, as in "true accounts" when they aren't merely simplistic.

For instance, that's what trials are concerned with. Trial by jury etc.

Also scientists when they do complex and difficult research.

Opinions are opinions we can speak about them all day long yours are yours, mine are mine, and everyone else has them. The rub comes in whether what we believe is true or not, if it is reflected in reality or not, or if it is just conjecture without a real connection to reality. If you water down all truth to nothing but opinion, you are no longer speaking about reality, instead, you are turning everything into something relative with no more value than the next guy's opinion.

However, there may be no-one on Chess.com better at discussing this than I am. I'm not saying it's the case but it's possible there is. Therefore you could be passing up a chance by refusing to understand what I'm saying. @Elroch, for instance, doesn't seem to get it. Since he's a statistician, it may be that his thinking is dominated by ideas of sets of true propositions or something like that. Similar to the philosopher-who-wasn't-a-philosopher, who defined it incorrrectly, simplistically and self-referentially.

I think your thought is dominated by thoughts of a Deity, who is assumed to be the only source of truth. But that doesn't help because I can see that you don't have access to these true propositions. On the other hand, the Deity likes me, since I have been fortunate enough to have been led along a path, at the end of which I am here to talk to you about truth.

This in no way indicates that the Big Bang is true. It merely indicates that the universe is expanding. Those two things are very different from one another. One, expansion, is an observation which is almost certainly true, although attempts have been made to explain differential light frequencies by means other than universal expansion. The other, Big Bang, is an hypothesis about the beginning of the universe which depends on a supernatural event which seems so unlikely as to be impossible. It is merely an attempt to replace supernatural origin of the universe by another type of supernatural origin, again possibly by God, since modelling the first instant of expansion has proven to be completely impossible. The maths doesn't fit the observations we have.

Many other aspects of the supposed Big Bang, such as acceleration of expansion to name only one, cannot be explained by the Big Bang idea so attempts have been made to keep the BBT alive, by the addition in an ad hoc manner of all sorts of mechanisms that are extraneous to the Big Bang idea itself. Very many cosmologists or astronomers no longer believe it and so the idea of the BBT (Big Bang Theory) tends to be maintained by non-specialists or those involved in the astronomical sciences at a low, non-interpretational level. I have successfully persuaded quite a number of working cosmologists (for want of a better title) that the BBT is non-viable, back when I was taking more of an interest in it.

If everything is opinion and relative then there could not be a no scale of who discusses this best or worse, it would all be opinion and relative. The only way correction could be had or scales could be used to discuss this type of stuff is where absolutes are involved, where what is can be compared to what isn't. If you think it's all relative and you are the best at discussing this type of thing, then the only way that could be true is, because you agree with you.

God who is the prime reality would own all truth since nothing could exist except for Him.

An expanding universe, if reversed, has a beginning, if you convinced a cosmologist that isn't true, are you sure they were cosmologists? This seems consistent with you there is no such thing as an absolute, you seem to be able to hold contradictory variables as equally true at the same time in the same place.

The universe shrinking backward if we reverse the expansion there will come to a point where all the material is in zero space, and you are left with a place without time, space, and energy that is where creatio ex nihilo seems like the most reasonable answer.

You seem incapable of arguing about the subject matter. If you believe that, should you be talking to me? I mean, from your point of view? Let's move on from your parody of scepticism.

If we imagine a universe where all points are moving further from all other points, that means that each tiny part of the universe is expanding in its own right. Such a process demands a steady state input of either vast amounts of energy or of something else. Therefore, we have to regard the universe as steady state.

If we conceptually reverse the process of expansion and continue forever, eventually we gat to a tiny dot of exiestence. However, this is something that even some cosmologists are known to fail to understand. There's a difference between the conceptual idea of doing that and the truth. I used that word advisedly because in this context, truth = reality. The single dot is one only of an infinite set of possibilities. In practice, extrapolation to a single dot may not conform to the reality.

The reality is that either the universe began or did not begin. If it did not begin, perhaps that means an infinite duration in time. We can't be entirely sure that they are the only possibilities but it would logically appear to be the case. If the universe, on the other hand, began, then there is a viable argument that the blueprint for the universe must have pre-existed the universe. This leads to an apparent impasse but there's a way out of the impasse.

If all tiny parts are moving away from their starting point, that means a force is pushing them away. It isn't like they have in their own decided to move away. No law in the universe has ever moved a billiard ball, typically it takes someone with a cue stick. Once the ball is struck with a cue stick with enough force to move it, we can then with the laws of motion know where the balls are heading. Everything moving away from the starting point, at greater speed, against gravity, requires a force, reverse that, things would move together. Unlike moving away from each other which could happen eternally, moving closer together has a finite ending spot.

Try to read and understand what I'm telling you? It could be a process whereby an enormous force is continually input, which is applied to every part of the universe and is capable of accelerating the universe to velocities faster than light.

But it isn't that. It isn't caused by a force, at all. It isn't caused in a direct way by energy. That can be thrown out by the Law of Parsimony (Occam's razor), which some people who think they understand don't understand. I don't mean you.

I think you're starting to think more clearly and logically.

Also, don't forget you tried to put time into reverse. There isn't any reason to think that it must have started at a single point. That's actually a childish interpretation, which shows that cosmologists can seem very clever while completely missing the simple, true explanation.

Really I think this is the truth, except I would substitute "the universe" for God. Still, there are those who think that the universe is all knowing and reacts to each bit of information appropriately.

I do think truth is up for grabs because even if truth were to exist, and I think we can agree it does, in the form of "the universe" or "God", who can we trust among humanity to relay the content of that truth accurately? We don't know who is talking nonsense and who is talking sense. Your position and my position are not dissimilar.

Childish interpretation, if something is moving away, reverse that now it is moving closer, it is that simple not sure why you think it isn't the logical outcome once directions get reversed.

Pantheists may believe the universe is a sentient being, personally, I think a rock is just a rock.

The notion that there is a mathematical rational intelligibility to the universe that we can understand is a huge piece of evidence, if it were not so how could you even trust your thoughts? If there was no design, nothing but mindless indifference in the formation of your mind/brain how could you trust it? One of my favorite quotes on this topic was from Albert Einstein, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."

Sending and receiving information is a huge deal, people simply take some of the more amazing things in this life for granted. You get a thought, it causes various things to happen to you, and out of you comes sounds due to your pushing air as you speak, then on the receiving end of that sound wave hits another's ears, things occur, and they know what you said. They may not get you meaning, but the words registered. We have senses that allow input into us and with the we perceive the universe, why? It isn't like taste, seeing, hearing, touch, and smell are automatically something a chemical change could produce through time in such ways we perceive the universe around us. A lot is going on in the universe and life and people want something simple that avoids narratives they don't like.

I don't have a name for it and it doesn't mean that the universe has to be sentient. Just that it acts as a highly complex machine.

Einstein believed in God. He is usually represented as not believing but he was a Deist, meaning that in his opinion, God does not interfere in any way with humans or judge their morality. Einstein tended to think he knew better than other people and yet in a way it seemed that he was mentally ill, if we are to judge him by his behaviour to others. I dislike his memory. Anyway, you may like what he said about comprehensibility but it was a pretence on his part. After all, he was the one who fought tooth and nail against quantum physics. He single-handedly put back scientific understanding by at least ten years but I think by more than that, because he was also the one who supported the Big Bang Theory. (More evidence that he was a Deist.)

Anyway, thank Heavens, I'm enjoying what you're writing. I very much agree with your last sentence.

Thankyou for allowing me to see how you really think.

I find you engaging, I hope we don't piss each other off so we stop talking to one another.

Then it's mutual. I'm really pleased. I also have an appallingly bad cold so I won't write anything else today. I just opened a bottle of whisky my son gave me.

I'm recovering from one, I hope you don't get what I had, I was out of it for a few days on a long weekend from work and sick every single day of it.

Because if the initial condition is a smaller universe or a point, we couldn't tell the difference. It would look the same to us now and we don't know how far to extrapolate backwards.

It's assumed with the Big Bang that the matter of the universe at one time occupied a small space and just expanded. It would be approximately infinitely dense, approximately infinitely hot. There's no reason to think that because it's just an assumption that MMR is a relic from a hot initial state. Just people pretending they're clever when they aren't.Their jobs depend on it.

Instead, imagine an initial state with nothing but space and very basic particles. The space and particles are entangled. Where a random concentration of particles exists, there will be more extinctions, because the entangled space and particles have a half-life. The extinctions are gravity. The denser the material, the more extinctions. It drags everything inwards. Hoyle etc showed that it would lead to spiral nebulae, in the late 1950s. Unfortunately, Einstein had backed the Big Bang and hence the entire field of cosmology possibly got it wrong.

That's increasingly being realised but people who don't follow developments believe that the Big Bang is fine and dandy. My son has a Condensed Matter Physics PhD (quantum physics) and a first class MMath. He's 36. He thinks I'm right. Elroch thinks I'm wrong. There are many others who think I'm right, working in the field of cosmology. It's always been a hobby of mine.