Faithful
10-13-2010, 12:08 AM
Dr. Param Singh of the Perimeter Institute says, "The formula predicted by Einstein's theory and the connections derived from quantum gravity show us that as the universe becomes smaller and smaller from the first formula, both formulas go towards infinity, and we know whenever we encounter infinity in mathematics something has gone terribly wrong. So the expression that quantum gravity gives us ensures as we approach the big bang as the universe becomes smaller and smaller both formulas become zero. Then the universe starts expanding again in another direction and the same laws remain valid." Basically everything into nothing is never reached. Gravity repulses in the very small scale instead of attracts. Of course that helps Hindus in the name of Brahma to believe in a big bounce for reincarnation, but is it true? Why is everyone so hard up for cycles? These arbitrary, ad hoc, meaningless "cycles" are an idol.
What's wrong with infinity? God is infinite.
Dr. Param Singh is promoting cycles theory, but we know this to be false because if there was this alleged eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do. Silly.
The question was put to Param, What caused the infinite bouncing? He said, "That's the most important question, and I don't know the answer to that. Maybe we will find an answer to how it all started. It was certainly not the big bang. That is impossible. I don't believe in that at all."
But we have always known how it all started. The Bible tells us so. Christians don't believe in the "it happened all by itself" big bang either. We believe in what came before the big bang that God did it!
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1.1). "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20). God must be saying the law of cause and effect we observe in nature always exists in nature. Therefore, what Param thinks he is observing must, in reality, be mathematically flawed. Compare the uncreated Creator who has a mind to infinite regress of imploding universes. A mind is needed to create a mind. Information needs an informer.
Really, Param's bing bounce is just a way to reject the uncreated Creator so Param will go to Hell. Since God is proven (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm) does it make much sense to devise a theory that rejects God?
What's wrong with infinity? God is infinite.
Dr. Param Singh is promoting cycles theory, but we know this to be false because if there was this alleged eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do. Silly.
The question was put to Param, What caused the infinite bouncing? He said, "That's the most important question, and I don't know the answer to that. Maybe we will find an answer to how it all started. It was certainly not the big bang. That is impossible. I don't believe in that at all."
But we have always known how it all started. The Bible tells us so. Christians don't believe in the "it happened all by itself" big bang either. We believe in what came before the big bang that God did it!
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1.1). "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20). God must be saying the law of cause and effect we observe in nature always exists in nature. Therefore, what Param thinks he is observing must, in reality, be mathematically flawed. Compare the uncreated Creator who has a mind to infinite regress of imploding universes. A mind is needed to create a mind. Information needs an informer.
Really, Param's bing bounce is just a way to reject the uncreated Creator so Param will go to Hell. Since God is proven (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm) does it make much sense to devise a theory that rejects God?