I wanted to ask this question to the Atheist Think Tank, but since I
couldn't reach them through e-mail, I decided to just ask the question
here. So this is the e-mail:
--------------------
Dear people from the Atheist Think Tank,
From the moment I came across your website, I have been fascinated by
the 8 steps you use to explain the universe, because I have similar
opinions of how the universe works, especially on the matter
concerning time (and I haven't come across people with similar views
before, so I'm really happy!). However, I cannot grasp your
explanation on space. Do you have any solid facts backing up the
statement that space has always existed?
As for time, my own reasoning for it to have always existed, is that
it is both the past, the present and the future. For example, a lot of
religious stories start with "In the beginning...". Well, the
beginning is also a point in time, so that means that time existed in
the beginning. Then the 'dreaded question' arises: What happened
before the beginning? well, if something happened before the
beginning, then it would also be a passing of time, so time still
existed before the so-called 'beginning'. And it exited before the
happening before the beginning, and before that, and before that, etc.
because the word 'before', already indicates time. Same goes for the
End of Time - the End of Time is also a point in time (the name itself
is very telling ^_^). Of course, the same question comes up: What
happens after the End of Time? Well, according to one certain believe
there will be a 1000 year kingdom. But that already explains that time
does not truly end in the so-called End of Time, because the 1000
years which happen afterwards are also be a passing of time. And
anything that happens after that is also a passing of time. So it
doesn't stop, it's continuing and continuing. This is why I see time
as an infinite and never ending framework in which all HAPPENS.
But can the same be said for space? Space is never ending, I can tell
so much. The space in my room is space; the universe is a part of
space; and the space outside the universe is also space; and so is the
space outside of the space outside of the universe; etc. etc. So space
is a certain never ending framework in which certain things take
place. So my question is:
* Is it a priority that if something 'happens', it -must- happen
SOMEWHERE (that is to say, it must happen within a certain amount of
space)?
Only ifs the answer is 'yes', does space get to stand on equal footing
with time. If not, then the framework of time is bigger than the
framework of space, which means that time existed before space and
space has not always just existed.
So, please enlighten me! Is the answer yes or no? And -why- is it yes
or no?? I cannot live with authoritative answers (because that is the
same as religious doctrine), so I truly wish to have solid arguments,
reasoning, and most of all facts that may clear this matter up for
me!! Or perhaps my reasoning has faults somewhere which you can point
out for me?
Thank you in advance!
Best wishes,
S. Goten
------------------
Now, I expect intelligent answers from intelligent people, so please
refrain from those brainless oneliners.
> I wanted to ask this question to the Atheist Think Tank, but since I
> couldn't reach them through e-mail, I decided to just ask the question
> here. So this is the e-mail:
> --------------------
> Dear people from the Atheist Think Tank,
> From the moment I came across your website, I have been fascinated by
> the 8 steps you use to explain the universe, because I have similar
> opinions of how the universe works, especially on the matter
> concerning time (and I haven't come across people with similar views
> before, so I'm really happy!). However, I cannot grasp your
> explanation on space. Do you have any solid facts backing up the
> statement that space has always existed?
> As for time, my own reasoning for it to have always existed, is that
> it is both the past, the present and the future. For example, a lot of
> religious stories start with "In the beginning...". Well, the
> beginning is also a point in time, so that means that time existed in
> the beginning. Then the 'dreaded question' arises: What happened
> before the beginning? well, if something happened before the
> beginning, then it would also be a passing of time, so time still
> existed before the so-called 'beginning'. And it exited before the
> happening before the beginning, and before that, and before that, etc.
> because the word 'before', already indicates time. Same goes for the
> End of Time - the End of Time is also a point in time (the name itself
> is very telling ^_^). Of course, the same question comes up: What
> happens after the End of Time? Well, according to one certain believe
> there will be a 1000 year kingdom. But that already explains that time
> does not truly end in the so-called End of Time, because the 1000
> years which happen afterwards are also be a passing of time. And
> anything that happens after that is also a passing of time. So it
> doesn't stop, it's continuing and continuing. This is why I see time
> as an infinite and never ending framework in which all HAPPENS.
> But can the same be said for space? Space is never ending, I can tell
> so much. The space in my room is space; the universe is a part of
> space; and the space outside the universe is also space; and so is the
> space outside of the space outside of the universe; etc. etc. So space
> is a certain never ending framework in which certain things take
> place. So my question is:
> * Is it a priority that if something 'happens', it -must- happen
> SOMEWHERE (that is to say, it must happen within a certain amount of
> space)?
> Only ifs the answer is 'yes', does space get to stand on equal footing
> with time. If not, then the framework of time is bigger than the
> framework of space, which means that time existed before space and
> space has not always just existed.
> So, please enlighten me! Is the answer yes or no? And -why- is it yes
> or no?? I cannot live with authoritative answers (because that is the
> same as religious doctrine), so I truly wish to have solid arguments,
> reasoning, and most of all facts that may clear this matter up for
> me!! Or perhaps my reasoning has faults somewhere which you can point
> out for me?
> Thank you in advance!
> Best wishes,
> S. Goten
> ------------------
> Now, I expect intelligent answers from intelligent people, so please
> refrain from those brainless oneliners.
On Nov 29, 7:23 pm, "Ms. S. Goten" <SonnyGo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wanted to ask this question to the Atheist Think Tank, but since I
> couldn't reach them through e-mail, I decided to just ask the question
> here. So this is the e-mail:
> --------------------
> Dear people from the Atheist Think Tank,
> From the moment I came across your website, I have been fascinated by
> the 8 steps you use to explain the universe, because I have similar
> opinions of how the universe works, especially on the matter
> concerning time (and I haven't come across people with similar views
> before, so I'm really happy!). However, I cannot grasp your
> explanation on space. Do you have any solid facts backing up the
> statement that space has always existed?
Always can be defined as "occurring or existing at all points in
time". Since space cannot exist without time (which is why it is
called space-time) then space necessarily has existed at all points in
time. So yes, space has always existed, by current definitions.
> As for time, my own reasoning for it to have always existed, is that
> it is both the past, the present and the future. For example, a lot of
> religious stories start with "In the beginning...". Well, the
> beginning is also a point in time, so that means that time existed in
> the beginning. Then the 'dreaded question' arises: What happened
> before the beginning? well, if something happened before the
> beginning, then it would also be a passing of time, so time still
> existed before the so-called 'beginning'. And it exited before the
> happening before the beginning, and before that, and before that, etc.
> because the word 'before', already indicates time. Same goes for the
> End of Time - the End of Time is also a point in time (the name itself
> is very telling ^_^). Of course, the same question comes up: What
> happens after the End of Time? Well, according to one certain believe
> there will be a 1000 year kingdom. But that already explains that time
> does not truly end in the so-called End of Time, because the 1000
> years which happen afterwards are also be a passing of time. And
> anything that happens after that is also a passing of time. So it
> doesn't stop, it's continuing and continuing. This is why I see time
> as an infinite and never ending framework in which all HAPPENS.
> But can the same be said for space? Space is never ending, I can tell
> so much. The space in my room is space; the universe is a part of
> space; and the space outside the universe is also space; and so is the
> space outside of the space outside of the universe; etc. etc. So space
> is a certain never ending framework in which certain things take
> place. So my question is:
> * Is it a priority that if something 'happens', it -must- happen
> SOMEWHERE (that is to say, it must happen within a certain amount of
> space)?
> Only ifs the answer is 'yes', does space get to stand on equal footing
> with time. If not, then the framework of time is bigger than the
> framework of space, which means that time existed before space and
> space has not always just existed.
> So, please enlighten me! Is the answer yes or no? And -why- is it yes
> or no?? I cannot live with authoritative answers (because that is the
> same as religious doctrine), so I truly wish to have solid arguments,
> reasoning, and most of all facts that may clear this matter up for
> me!! Or perhaps my reasoning has faults somewhere which you can point
> out for me?
> Thank you in advance!
> Best wishes,
> S. Goten
> ------------------
> Now, I expect intelligent answers from intelligent people, so please
> refrain from those brainless oneliners.
Dman pretty much covered your question but could you explain this-
>and the space outside the universe is also space; and so is the
>space outside of the space outside of the universe; etc. etc
Plenty of theory out their on the topic of what's outside the
universe. But isn't it a little premature to declare anything
(including space-time) is outside of the known universe?
> Space is never ending, I can tell
>so much.
how can you tell?
> So space
>is a certain never ending framework in which certain things take
>place.
never ending space outside of space outside of space? Says who?
>* Is it a priority that if something 'happens', it -must- happen
>SOMEWHERE (that is to say, it must happen within a certain amount of
>space)?
>Only ifs the answer is 'yes', does space get to stand on equal footing
>with time.
along with your challenge to the equality of space and time, perhaps
you could provide some examples of things that don't take place in
some "space".
>If not, then the framework of time is bigger than the
>framework of space,
bigger how? you seem to be needing to describe space independent of
time and vice versa here. Would you?
>which means that time existed before space and
>space has not always just existed.
based on.......your say so?
>Or perhaps my reasoning has faults somewhere which you can point
>out for me?
simple,... you are asking for contradictory evidence to something you
have no evidence for or at least have not shown it here.
On Nov 29, 7:23 pm, "Ms. S. Goten" <SonnyGo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wanted to ask this question to the Atheist Think Tank, but since I
> couldn't reach them through e-mail, I decided to just ask the question
> here. So this is the e-mail:
> --------------------
> Dear people from the Atheist Think Tank,
> From the moment I came across your website, I have been fascinated by
> the 8 steps you use to explain the universe, because I have similar
> opinions of how the universe works, especially on the matter
> concerning time (and I haven't come across people with similar views
> before, so I'm really happy!). However, I cannot grasp your
> explanation on space. Do you have any solid facts backing up the
> statement that space has always existed?
> As for time, my own reasoning for it to have always existed, is that
> it is both the past, the present and the future. For example, a lot of
> religious stories start with "In the beginning...". Well, the
> beginning is also a point in time, so that means that time existed in
> the beginning. Then the 'dreaded question' arises: What happened
> before the beginning? well, if something happened before the
> beginning, then it would also be a passing of time, so time still
> existed before the so-called 'beginning'. And it exited before the
> happening before the beginning, and before that, and before that, etc.
> because the word 'before', already indicates time. Same goes for the
> End of Time - the End of Time is also a point in time (the name itself
> is very telling ^_^). Of course, the same question comes up: What
> happens after the End of Time? Well, according to one certain believe
> there will be a 1000 year kingdom. But that already explains that time
> does not truly end in the so-called End of Time, because the 1000
> years which happen afterwards are also be a passing of time. And
> anything that happens after that is also a passing of time. So it
> doesn't stop, it's continuing and continuing. This is why I see time
> as an infinite and never ending framework in which all HAPPENS.
> But can the same be said for space? Space is never ending, I can tell
> so much. The space in my room is space; the universe is a part of
> space; and the space outside the universe is also space; and so is the
> space outside of the space outside of the universe; etc. etc. So space
> is a certain never ending framework in which certain things take
> place. So my question is:
> * Is it a priority that if something 'happens', it -must- happen
> SOMEWHERE (that is to say, it must happen within a certain amount of
> space)?
> Only ifs the answer is 'yes', does space get to stand on equal footing
> with time. If not, then the framework of time is bigger than the
> framework of space, which means that time existed before space and
> space has not always just existed.
> So, please enlighten me! Is the answer yes or no? And -why- is it yes
> or no?? I cannot live with authoritative answers (because that is the
> same as religious doctrine), so I truly wish to have solid arguments,
> reasoning, and most of all facts that may clear this matter up for
> me!! Or perhaps my reasoning has faults somewhere which you can point
> out for me?
> Thank you in advance!
> Best wishes,
> S. Goten
> ------------------
> Now, I expect intelligent answers from intelligent people, so please
> refrain from those brainless oneliners.
@ Drafterman:
You still haven't completely covered it yet. Before you can truly
answer the question if space has always existed, you must also ask
yourself:
Can time exist without space?
Because space cannot be without time, but that doesn't mean nessecary
that time cannot be without space.
> >and the space outside the universe is also space; and so is the
> >space outside of the space outside of the universe; etc. etc
> Plenty of theory out their on the topic of what's outside the
> universe. But isn't it a little premature to declare anything
> (including space-time) is outside of the known universe?
No, I'm not saying that there is anything outside the known universe,
the 'space outside the universe' is purely hypothetical. What I'm
saying is that the universe itself consist of space, but if there is
an end to the universe (perhaps through a wall, or whatever), then
outside the universe, there MUST also be space. Because the wall or
whatever tehre is around the universe must also occupy space. The
definition of space is that it is a physical voidness (that can be
filled). If there is 'nothing' outside the universe, then nothing =
void = space. But it could also be that the universe itself never
ends, but like I said, the universe itself consists of space (occupied
or unoccupied), so that still does not contradict that space is never
ending.
> how can you tell?
Simply by trying to logically reason myself through it, but it's
merely a theory that I support, it's not a law yet, just like how the
evolution theory is not a law yet, but of which I'm also supportive.
> > Is it a priority that if something 'happens', it -must- happen
> >SOMEWHERE (that is to say, it must happen within a certain amount of
> >space)?
> >Only ifs the answer is 'yes', does space get to stand on equal footing
> >with time.
> along with your challenge to the equality of space and time, perhaps
> you could provide some examples of things that don't take place in
> some "space".
Well, that's exactly the point, if I knew the answer to that, I
wouldn't be asking the question, now would I? ^_^ But, correct me if
I'm reading it wrong between the lines, you suggest that the answer is
'yes'. Can you enlighten me on why you chose that answer? Some
explanation would be welcome indeed.
There is only one example that I know of that does not exist in space:
God. But that one cannot be proven to exist at all, so yeah... now I
got that dillemma, because although I'm not supportive of God's
existence (just like I do not believe in Santa), I cannot exactly
prove it to not exist (nor can I prove Santa not to exist).
And here's something about God that I concluded. Should God exist,
then he must be working within a framework of time. Which is something
that the Christians with whom I've spoken do not want to accept. But
the simple sentence "In the beginning, God created..." already tells
that this certain God is bound to time, because God works WITHIN the
beginning, and the beginning is a part of time. Also, the act of
creation itself (or any act at all) must also take time, so yeah,
EVERTHING works within the framework of time, even the things that
cannot be proven to exist, like Santa and God.
Again, it's a theory based on my own reasoning (and I've seen other
people come up with similar ideas on the internet), you may not agree
with it, and perhaps even falsify it.
> bigger how? you seem to be needing to describe space independent of
> time and vice versa here. Would you?
It would be bigger, because if space cannot be outside of the time
framework, and time CAN exist outside of framework of space, then
time's framework is logically bigger. But that's exactly my question:
Is the framework of time bigger than space (and thus exists before
space, meaning that space has not always existed)), or are they equal
and working together to frame the existing universe?
> based on.......your say so?
No, there is no basis. Like I said, it's my question that I'm posing,
plus some clarification of why I'm asking it and based on what
arguments. Please read carefully what I've written before commenting.
> Is the framework of time bigger than space (and thus exists before
> space, meaning that space has not always existed), or are they equal
> and working together to frame REALITY?
On Nov 30, 2:03 am, "Ms. S. Goten" <SonnyGo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @ Drafterman:
> You still haven't completely covered it yet. Before you can truly
> answer the question if space has always existed, you must also ask
> yourself:
> Can time exist without space?
> Because space cannot be without time, but that doesn't mean nessecary
> that time cannot be without space.
Dear Ms. S. Goten.
What you have is a paradox.
If time were an independent phenomenon it'd still constitute an
information frame, which - being dimensional - is a functional space
to itself. Whether it's temporal or not is irrelevant, we only elevate
"time" to something more independent b/c we are creatures of spatial
and temporal habit. The problem is that time may not really exist, but
information rate in experience does.
As for a first cause, there can be no such thing, but we suspect a
causeless, eternal creator could conjour material existence.
But to try to establish a creator in a frame separate from the thing
he would create establishes a paradox. Just like there being no
"nothingness," b/c there'd be no discrete boundary that'd allow for
such a thing, we can't use "nothingness" to define a creator b/c
there'd be no temporal or spatial boundary that would cast a creator
apart from his creation (creatio ex nihilo). Without nothingness
there's no creator (and the human mind cannot conceive of either a
beginning or a no-beginning).
One possible conclusion to this could be that creator & creation would
be one and the same, and both are eternal (the best solution to this
is some kind of pandeism). Or ex nihilo nihil fit.
The problem with both being eternal, however is, if they are one and
the same then creation doesn't need a creator.
On Nov 30, 2:46 am, "Ms. S. Goten" <SonnyGo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh pardon me, it's more accurate if I say:
> > Is the framework of time bigger than space (and thus exists before
> > space, meaning that space has not always existed), or are they equal
> > and working together to frame REALITY?
Then it's just another kind of frame of information and experience
(temporal and spatial dimensions are not necessary).
On Nov 30, 2:03 am, "Ms. S. Goten" <SonnyGo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @ Drafterman:
> You still haven't completely covered it yet. Before you can truly
> answer the question if space has always existed, you must also ask
> yourself:
> Can time exist without space?
> Because space cannot be without time, but that doesn't mean nessecary
> that time cannot be without space.
> No, I'm not saying that there is anything outside the known universe,
yes you did. go read your OP, and...
>What I'm
> saying is that the universe itself consist of space, but if there is
> an end to the universe (perhaps through a wall, or whatever), then
> outside the universe, there MUST also be space.
you say here
>But it could also be that the universe itself never
>ends,
but in your original post you claim
> Space is never ending, I can tell
>so much.
so, your actually don't know what you think you know or your willing
to change representations of what you think you know. Either way you
will be continueing this thread by yourself.
You offer no evidence that there is space outside the universe, you
just say it is so. Then you base other things on your if's and
unknowns. Pretty shoddy.
> > Is it a priority that if something 'happens', it -must- happen
> >SOMEWHERE (that is to say, it must happen within a certain amount of
> >space)?
> >Only ifs the answer is 'yes', does space get to stand on equal footing
> >with time.
> along with your challenge to the equality of space and time, perhaps
> you could provide some examples of things that don't take place in
> some "space".
>ell, that's exactly the point, if I knew the answer to that, I
>ouldn't be asking the question, now would I? ^_^ But, correct me if
>'m reading it wrong between the lines, you suggest that the answer is
>yes'. Can you enlighten me on why you chose that answer? Some
>xplanation would be welcome indeed.
Your grammer is confusing as hell. If my answer was yes or no I would
have clearly spelled the words ues or no. Your attempting to confuse
yourself away from answering my question which is: Please give
evidence of time and space existing independently of each other. You
have not given this evidence in any way shape or form. Unless you
think that making statements like: It could be that blah blah
blah...... In which case It could be that the god of rain will make it
rain soon so get your galloshes
>here is only one example that I know of that does not exist in space:
>god. But that one cannot be proven to exist at all, so yeah... now I
>ot that dillemma, because although I'm not supportive of God's
>xistence (just like I do not believe in Santa), I cannot exactly
>rove it to not exist (nor can I prove Santa not to exist).
As of no one knew that was your point all along.
Well why the fuck didnt you say you could not prove santa clause does
not exist in the forst place. Then I would have known from the get go
that you are a moron and I would stop wasting my time.
I am ignoring the rest of your gibberish. Do yourself a favor and
spend more time figuring out if you can prove you exist. Do so
elsewhere and if your not careful I'm telling you I'll go get Sweeney
Dev and you'll be sorry!
On Nov 30, 2:39 am, "Ms. S. Goten" <SonnyGo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >and the space outside the universe is also space; and so is the
> > >space outside of the space outside of the universe; etc. etc
> > Plenty of theory out their on the topic of what's outside the
> > universe. But isn't it a little premature to declare anything
> > (including space-time) is outside of the known universe?
> No, I'm not saying that there is anything outside the known universe,
> the 'space outside the universe' is purely hypothetical. What I'm
> saying is that the universe itself consist of space, but if there is
> an end to the universe (perhaps through a wall, or whatever), then
> outside the universe, there MUST also be space. Because the wall or
> whatever tehre is around the universe must also occupy space. The
> definition of space is that it is a physical voidness (that can be
> filled). If there is 'nothing' outside the universe, then nothing =
> void = space. But it could also be that the universe itself never
> ends, but like I said, the universe itself consists of space (occupied
> or unoccupied), so that still does not contradict that space is never
> ending.
> > how can you tell?
> Simply by trying to logically reason myself through it, but it's
> merely a theory that I support, it's not a law yet, just like how the
> evolution theory is not a law yet, but of which I'm also supportive.
> > > Is it a priority that if something 'happens', it -must- happen
> > >SOMEWHERE (that is to say, it must happen within a certain amount of
> > >space)?
> > >Only ifs the answer is 'yes', does space get to stand on equal footing
> > >with time.
> > along with your challenge to the equality of space and time, perhaps
> > you could provide some examples of things that don't take place in
> > some "space".
> Well, that's exactly the point, if I knew the answer to that, I
> wouldn't be asking the question, now would I? ^_^ But, correct me if
> I'm reading it wrong between the lines, you suggest that the answer is
> 'yes'. Can you enlighten me on why you chose that answer? Some
> explanation would be welcome indeed.
> There is only one example that I know of that does not exist in space:
> God. But that one cannot be proven to exist at all, so yeah... now I
> got that dillemma, because although I'm not supportive of God's
> existence (just like I do not believe in Santa), I cannot exactly
> prove it to not exist (nor can I prove Santa not to exist).
> And here's something about God that I concluded. Should God exist,
> then he must be working within a framework of time. Which is something
> that the Christians with whom I've spoken do not want to accept. But
> the simple sentence "In the beginning, God created..." already tells
> that this certain God is bound to time, because God works WITHIN the
> beginning, and the beginning is a part of time. Also, the act of
> creation itself (or any act at all) must also take time, so yeah,
> EVERTHING works within the framework of time, even the things that
> cannot be proven to exist, like Santa and God.
> Again, it's a theory based on my own reasoning (and I've seen other
> people come up with similar ideas on the internet), you may not agree
> with it, and perhaps even falsify it.
> > bigger how? you seem to be needing to describe space independent of
> > time and vice versa here. Would you?
> It would be bigger, because if space cannot be outside of the time
> framework, and time CAN exist outside of framework of space, then
> time's framework is logically bigger. But that's exactly my question:
> Is the framework of time bigger than space (and thus exists before
> space, meaning that space has not always existed)), or are they equal
> and working together to frame the existing universe?
> > based on.......your say so?
> No, there is no basis. Like I said, it's my question that I'm posing,
> plus some clarification of why I'm asking it and based on what
> arguments. Please read carefully what I've written before commenting.
> I wanted to ask this question to the Atheist Think Tank, but since I
> couldn't reach them through e-mail, I decided to just ask the question
> here. So this is the e-mail:
> --------------------
> Dear people from the Atheist Think Tank,
> From the moment I came across your website, I have been fascinated by
> the 8 steps you use to explain the universe, because I have similar
> opinions of how the universe works, especially on the matter
> concerning time (and I haven't come across people with similar views
> before, so I'm really happy!). However, I cannot grasp your
> explanation on space. Do you have any solid facts backing up the
> statement that space has always existed?
> As for time, my own reasoning for it to have always existed, is that
> it is both the past, the present and the future. For example, a lot of
> religious stories start with "In the beginning...". Well, the
> beginning is also a point in time, so that means that time existed in
> the beginning. Then the 'dreaded question' arises: What happened
> before the beginning? well, if something happened before the
> beginning, then it would also be a passing of time, so time still
> existed before the so-called 'beginning'. And it exited before the
> happening before the beginning, and before that, and before that, etc.
> because the word 'before', already indicates time. Same goes for the
> End of Time - the End of Time is also a point in time (the name itself
> is very telling ^_^). Of course, the same question comes up: What
> happens after the End of Time? Well, according to one certain believe
> there will be a 1000 year kingdom. But that already explains that time
> does not truly end in the so-called End of Time, because the 1000
> years which happen afterwards are also be a passing of time. And
> anything that happens after that is also a passing of time. So it
> doesn't stop, it's continuing and continuing. This is why I see time
> as an infinite and never ending framework in which all HAPPENS.
> But can the same be said for space? Space is never ending, I can tell
> so much. The space in my room is space; the universe is a part of
> space; and the space outside the universe is also space; and so is the
> space outside of the space outside of the universe; etc. etc. So space
> is a certain never ending framework in which certain things take
> place. So my question is:
> * Is it a priority that if something 'happens', it -must- happen
> SOMEWHERE (that is to say, it must happen within a certain amount of
> space)?
> Only ifs the answer is 'yes', does space get to stand on equal footing
> with time. If not, then the framework of time is bigger than the
> framework of space, which means that time existed before space and
> space has not always just existed.
> So, please enlighten me! Is the answer yes or no? And -why- is it yes
> or no?? I cannot live with authoritative answers (because that is the
> same as religious doctrine), so I truly wish to have solid arguments,
> reasoning, and most of all facts that may clear this matter up for
> me!! Or perhaps my reasoning has faults somewhere which you can point
> out for me?
> Thank you in advance!
> Best wishes,
> S. Goten
> ------------------
> Now, I expect intelligent answers from intelligent people, so please
> refrain from those brainless oneliners.
interesting stuff you seemed to have familiarized yourself with here.
perhaps beyond my pay grade but could you explain a little better what
you mean by:
>The problem is that time may not really exist,
I see how you worked it into context, I think. Time does exist and
has been aggressively studied via mathematics, physics, and other
stuff I know even less about. Time dilation has been measured.
Perhaps there is more to learn about time. From what I gather though,
we are as certain as we are going to be for now that time does exist.
Also the relationship between space and time has and continues to be
probed.
So how do you figure time may not exist?
Also you stated:
>As for a first cause, there can be no such thing, but we suspect a
>causeless, eternal creator could conjour material existence.
never mind who the we are that are suspecting this. Which causeless,
eternal creators were included in this study and can I get their
contact info?
and as far as:
>Without nothingness
>there's no creator (and the human mind cannot conceive of either a
>beginning or a no-beginning).
I don't lose any sleep over the environmental constraints you may
imagine apply to a creator due to the fact they do not exist. I
know lots and lots of human minds that can conceive of a beginning and
a no beginning. Just pointing that out.
On Nov 30, 3:38 am, leebert <sregdor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2:03 am, "Ms. S. Goten" <SonnyGo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > @ Drafterman:
> > You still haven't completely covered it yet. Before you can truly
> > answer the question if space has always existed, you must also ask
> > yourself:
> > Can time exist without space?
> > Because space cannot be without time, but that doesn't mean nessecary
> > that time cannot be without space.
> Dear Ms. S. Goten.
> What you have is a paradox.
> If time were an independent phenomenon it'd still constitute an
> information frame, which - being dimensional - is a functional space
> to itself. Whether it's temporal or not is irrelevant, we only elevate
> "time" to something more independent b/c we are creatures of spatial
> and temporal habit. The problem is that time may not really exist, but
> information rate in experience does.
> As for a first cause, there can be no such thing, but we suspect a
> causeless, eternal creator could conjour material existence.
> But to try to establish a creator in a frame separate from the thing
> he would create establishes a paradox. Just like there being no
> "nothingness," b/c there'd be no discrete boundary that'd allow for
> such a thing, we can't use "nothingness" to define a creator b/c
> there'd be no temporal or spatial boundary that would cast a creator
> apart from his creation (creatio ex nihilo). Without nothingness
> there's no creator (and the human mind cannot conceive of either a
> beginning or a no-beginning).
> One possible conclusion to this could be that creator & creation would
> be one and the same, and both are eternal (the best solution to this
> is some kind of pandeism). Or ex nihilo nihil fit.
> The problem with both being eternal, however is, if they are one and
> the same then creation doesn't need a creator.
Time and space in the universe are linked. This link is observed in
the behavior of photons. The beginning of the observable universe can
be explained as a random conversion of energy to matter in a quantum
flux event we call the big bang. Could the spark of energy the
universe emerged from have existed outside of the framework of time
and space? If the flux event is completely random then time-space
might be meaningless for the energy source. It might have no
beginning or end in time and have no relationship to space having no
spatial dimensions.
On Nov 30, 11:45 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> interesting stuff you seemed to have familiarized yourself with here.
> perhaps beyond my pay grade but could you explain a little better what
> you mean by:
> >The problem is that time may not really exist,
> I see how you worked it into context, I think. Time does exist and
> has been aggressively studied via mathematics, physics, and other
> stuff I know even less about. Time dilation has been measured.
> Perhaps there is more to learn about time. From what I gather though,
> we are as certain as we are going to be for now that time does exist.
> Also the relationship between space and time has and continues to be
> probed.
> So how do you figure time may not exist?
> Also you stated:
> >As for a first cause, there can be no such thing, but we suspect a
> >causeless, eternal creator could conjour material existence.
> never mind who the we are that are suspecting this. Which causeless,
> eternal creators were included in this study and can I get their
> contact info?
> and as far as:
> >Without nothingness
> >there's no creator (and the human mind cannot conceive of either a
> >beginning or a no-beginning).
> I don't lose any sleep over the environmental constraints you may
> imagine apply to a creator due to the fact they do not exist. I
> know lots and lots of human minds that can conceive of a beginning and
> a no beginning. Just pointing that out.
> On Nov 30, 3:38 am, leebert <sregdor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 2:03 am, "Ms. S. Goten" <SonnyGo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > @ Drafterman:
> > > You still haven't completely covered it yet. Before you can truly
> > > answer the question if space has always existed, you must also ask
> > > yourself:
> > > Can time exist without space?
> > > Because space cannot be without time, but that doesn't mean nessecary
> > > that time cannot be without space.
> > Dear Ms. S. Goten.
> > What you have is a paradox.
> > If time were an independent phenomenon it'd still constitute an
> > information frame, which - being dimensional - is a functional space
> > to itself. Whether it's temporal or not is irrelevant, we only elevate
> > "time" to something more independent b/c we are creatures of spatial
> > and temporal habit. The problem is that time may not really exist, but
> > information rate in experience does.
> > As for a first cause, there can be no such thing, but we suspect a
> > causeless, eternal creator could conjour material existence.
> > But to try to establish a creator in a frame separate from the thing
> > he would create establishes a paradox. Just like there being no
> > "nothingness," b/c there'd be no discrete boundary that'd allow for
> > such a thing, we can't use "nothingness" to define a creator b/c
> > there'd be no temporal or spatial boundary that would cast a creator
> > apart from his creation (creatio ex nihilo). Without nothingness
> > there's no creator (and the human mind cannot conceive of either a
> > beginning or a no-beginning).
> > One possible conclusion to this could be that creator & creation would
> > be one and the same, and both are eternal (the best solution to this
> > is some kind of pandeism). Or ex nihilo nihil fit.
> > The problem with both being eternal, however is, if they are one and
> > the same then creation doesn't need a creator.
Thanks. That's very sweet of you to chime in. I am familiar with
current theories and I believe science is hot on the trail to an
explanation of the universe. In my reply to leebert I was asking him
to explain the apparent malarky in his post. In your post here you
state:
> The beginning of the observable universe can
> be explained as a random conversion of energy to matter in a quantum
> flux event we call the big bang.
which is incorrect as: As used by scientists, the term Big Bang
generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a
primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the
past, and continues to expand to this day. .... Without any evidence
associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang
theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial
condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of
the universe since that instant.
(Wiki)
Try not making stuff up.
and you ask:
>Could the spark of energy the
> universe emerged from have existed outside of the framework of time
> and space?
I think I get your question here although since you lack an accurate
understanding of the the term "The Big Bang" I could be wrong.
you might find "M Theory" interesting. Wander over to a book and give
it a whirl.
On Dec 1, 1:10 am, The Wonderer <thewonderer2...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Time and space in the universe are linked. This link is observed in
> the behavior of photons. The beginning of the observable universe can
> be explained as a random conversion of energy to matter in a quantum
> flux event we call the big bang. Could the spark of energy the
> universe emerged from have existed outside of the framework of time
> and space? If the flux event is completely random then time-space
> might be meaningless for the energy source. It might have no
> beginning or end in time and have no relationship to space having no
> spatial dimensions.
> On Nov 30, 11:45 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > interesting stuff you seemed to have familiarized yourself with here.
> > perhaps beyond my pay grade but could you explain a little better what
> > you mean by:
> > >The problem is that time may not really exist,
> > I see how you worked it into context, I think. Time does exist and
> > has been aggressively studied via mathematics, physics, and other
> > stuff I know even less about. Time dilation has been measured.
> > Perhaps there is more to learn about time. From what I gather though,
> > we are as certain as we are going to be for now that time does exist.
> > Also the relationship between space and time has and continues to be
> > probed.
> > So how do you figure time may not exist?
> > Also you stated:
> > >As for a first cause, there can be no such thing, but we suspect a
> > >causeless, eternal creator could conjour material existence.
> > never mind who the we are that are suspecting this. Which causeless,
> > eternal creators were included in this study and can I get their
> > contact info?
> > and as far as:
> > >Without nothingness
> > >there's no creator (and the human mind cannot conceive of either a
> > >beginning or a no-beginning).
> > I don't lose any sleep over the environmental constraints you may
> > imagine apply to a creator due to the fact they do not exist. I
> > know lots and lots of human minds that can conceive of a beginning and
> > a no beginning. Just pointing that out.
> > On Nov 30, 3:38 am, leebert <sregdor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 30, 2:03 am, "Ms. S. Goten" <SonnyGo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > @ Drafterman:
> > > > You still haven't completely covered it yet. Before you can truly
> > > > answer the question if space has always existed, you must also ask
> > > > yourself:
> > > > Can time exist without space?
> > > > Because space cannot be without time, but that doesn't mean nessecary
> > > > that time cannot be without space.
> > > Dear Ms. S. Goten.
> > > What you have is a paradox.
> > > If time were an independent phenomenon it'd still constitute an
> > > information frame, which - being dimensional - is a functional space
> > > to itself. Whether it's temporal or not is irrelevant, we only elevate
> > > "time" to something more independent b/c we are creatures of spatial
> > > and temporal habit. The problem is that time may not really exist, but
> > > information rate in experience does.
> > > As for a first cause, there can be no such thing, but we suspect a
> > > causeless, eternal creator could conjour material existence.
> > > But to try to establish a creator in a frame separate from the thing
> > > he would create establishes a paradox. Just like there being no
> > > "nothingness," b/c there'd be no discrete boundary that'd allow for
> > > such a thing, we can't use "nothingness" to define a creator b/c
> > > there'd be no temporal or spatial boundary that would cast a creator
> > > apart from his creation (creatio ex nihilo). Without nothingness
> > > there's no creator (and the human mind cannot conceive of either a
> > > beginning or a no-beginning).
> > > One possible conclusion to this could be that creator & creation would
> > > be one and the same, and both are eternal (the best solution to this
> > > is some kind of pandeism). Or ex nihilo nihil fit.
> > > The problem with both being eternal, however is, if they are one and
> > > the same then creation doesn't need a creator.
On Nov 30, 11:45 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> interesting stuff you seemed to have familiarized yourself with here.
> perhaps beyond my pay grade but could you explain a little better what
> you mean by:
> >The problem is that time may not really exist,
> I see how you worked it into context, I think. Time does exist and
> has been aggressively studied via mathematics, physics, and other
> stuff I know even less about. Time dilation has been measured.
> Perhaps there is more to learn about time. From what I gather though,
> we are as certain as we are going to be for now that time does exist.
> Also the relationship between space and time has and continues to be
> probed.
IOW, our notions of time are flawed. That's not to say time dilation
isn't a real phenomenon, the problem is that what time dilation
represents is relative frames of experience and information, with
physical constraints that inhere parametric flux. So "time" may be an
abstraction - an artifact or emergent property - of something far more
fundamental about the physical universe.
> So how do you figure time may not exist?
Also google for "quantum time doesn't exist"
> Also you stated:
> >As for a first cause, there can be no such thing, but we suspect a
> >causeless, eternal creator could conjour material existence.
> never mind who the we are that are suspecting this. Which causeless,
> eternal creators were included in this study and can I get their
> contact info?
I wasn't endorsing the idea, I was speaking to an audience (as you may
have noted from the conclusion I drew at the *END* of my little
missive.....(literalist!!!!) )
OTOH, I *am* the imperial "we."
> and as far as:
> >Without nothingness
> >there's no creator (and the human mind cannot conceive of either a
> >beginning or a no-beginning).
> I don't lose any sleep over the environmental constraints you may
> imagine apply to a creator due to the fact they do not exist. I
> know lots and lots of human minds that can conceive of a beginning and
> a no beginning. Just pointing that out.
Everyone thinks they can conceive it, but neither views are
conceptually possible. A beginning introduces paradoxes, and
eternalism is inexplicable as well (in this case the "god" concept is
just a placeholder for a big question mark, and the atheist side isn't
much different). Atheistic eternalism is the default in that it
doesn't propose a solution to the paradox, but the paradox stands:
Why? How?
Granted a dialog on this paradox typically results in citation of
preconceived notion. That's just rearranging prejudices, not thinking
or admission of the fundamental paradox inhered by an eternal cosmos.
On Dec 1, 8:54 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> which is incorrect as: As used by scientists, the term Big Bang
> generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a
> primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the
> past, and continues to expand to this day. .... Without any evidence
> associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang
> theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial
> condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of
> the universe since that instant.
> (Wiki)
And prior to that so-called "initial condition" what phenomena
preceded it?
> Try not making stuff up.
Oh great. A didactic naive materialist lecturing someone else. Much
the same as the naive theists.
On Dec 1, 1:10 am, The Wonderer <thewonderer2...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Time and space in the universe are linked. This link is observed in
> the behavior of photons. The beginning of the observable universe can
> be explained as a random conversion of energy to matter in a quantum
> flux event we call the big bang. Could the spark of energy the
> universe emerged from have existed outside of the framework of time
> and space?
Then it would be a different, more fundamental, framework -- but
you've also expanded the notion & underpinnings of the universe. IOW,
by introducing a non-material realm & non-material forms, you've
expanded the definition of the universe to include those, and our own
perceived universe as a subset.
Our own "universe" might really be a subverse, and the multiverse as
well.
Or IOW it's turtles all the way down.
This is how to deconstruct theist arguments, is to concede to the
eternalist notions but show how they're actually conflating nihilism
with theism, even though it looks like a dialectic.
> If the flux event is completely random then time-space
> might be meaningless for the energy source. It might have no
> beginning or end in time and have no relationship to space having no
> spatial dimensions.
But spatial dimensions aren't required.
An abstract way of looking at this is that essence is comprised of
information & experience,and those are what constitutes observer - and
observer reifies (collapses the wave).
You've hit on the crux of this paradox, that if there were a "wall" or
"barrier" into other realms that had different physical structures,
then the definition of "universe" changes into a multiversal (or
super- and sub-versal structures).
The problem with conceptualizing "nothingness" is that it doesn't make
sense. There can be no void that isn't somehow co-arisen with what
exists, since everything is contiguous -- even were there some kind of
"wall" or barrier. IOW a void - if there is one - isn't nothingness,
it's something else (dark matter, dark energy, supersymmetric
particles, strings, quantum noise, sub-Higgs thingees).
So the problem with conceptualizing a creator is that you have to have
a void for him to fill along with where he resides as well. If there
were really "nothingness" then all would be void, and yet a creator
couldn't be separate from it. Since eternalism is the basis of this
problem, then both creator & creation would coarise & coexist in
eternity (no matter how complex, including multiverses, membranes,
strings & other cosmic motes reified into tangible things ....).
The only solution here is that creator and creation are one & the
same, but then - as good Draftermon pointed out - creation doesn't
need the creator, it all just *IS*.
Where does this put God? Well, in the cosmological sense, he's a
conceptual placeholder for the unknown, unknowable & the great
ontological & existential quandaries (functionally the same as the
Tao). And a placeholder for notions of a greater social/moral
universal ideal, and a compassionate placeholder that votaries take
refuge as a nostrum to mortality, grief, etc.
3000 years ago these were probably important nostrums against social
chaos, esp. considering some of the excesses inherent in tribal
animism (human sacrifices in various tribal cultures).
/leebert
On Nov 30, 2:39 am, "Ms. S. Goten" <SonnyGo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >and the space outside the universe is also space; and so is the
> > >space outside of the space outside of the universe; etc. etc
> > Plenty of theory out their on the topic of what's outside the
> > universe. But isn't it a little premature to declare anything
> > (including space-time) is outside of the known universe?
> No, I'm not saying that there is anything outside the known universe,
> the 'space outside the universe' is purely hypothetical. What I'm
> saying is that the universe itself consist of space, but if there is
> an end to the universe (perhaps through a wall, or whatever), then
> outside the universe, there MUST also be space. Because the wall or
> whatever tehre is around the universe must also occupy space. The
> definition of space is that it is a physical voidness (that can be
> filled). If there is 'nothing' outside the universe, then nothing =
> void = space. But it could also be that the universe itself never
> ends, but like I said, the universe itself consists of space (occupied
> or unoccupied), so that still does not contradict that space is never
> ending.
> > how can you tell?
> Simply by trying to logically reason myself through it, but it's
> merely a theory that I support, it's not a law yet, just like how the
> evolution theory is not a law yet, but of which I'm also supportive.
> > > Is it a priority that if something 'happens', it -must- happen
> > >SOMEWHERE (that is to say, it must happen within a certain amount of
> > >space)?
> > >Only ifs the answer is 'yes', does space get to stand on equal footing
> > >with time.
> > along with your challenge to the equality of space and time, perhaps
> > you could provide some examples of things that don't take place in
> > some "space".
> Well, that's exactly the point, if I knew the answer to that, I
> wouldn't be asking the question, now would I? ^_^ But, correct me if
> I'm reading it wrong between the lines, you suggest that the answer is
> 'yes'. Can you enlighten me on why you chose that answer? Some
> explanation would be welcome indeed.
> There is only one example that I know of that does not exist in space:
> God. But that one cannot be proven to exist at all, so yeah... now I
> got that dillemma, because although I'm not supportive of God's
> existence (just like I do not believe in Santa), I cannot exactly
> prove it to not exist (nor can I prove Santa not to exist).
> And here's something about God that I concluded. Should God exist,
> then he must be working within a framework of time. Which is something
> that the Christians with whom I've spoken do not want to accept. But
> the simple sentence "In the beginning, God created..." already tells
> that this certain God is bound to time, because God works WITHIN the
> beginning, and the beginning is a part of time. Also, the act of
> creation itself (or any act at all) must also take time, so yeah,
> EVERTHING works within the framework of time, even the things that
> cannot be proven to exist, like Santa and God.
> Again, it's a theory based on my own reasoning (and I've seen other
> people come up with similar ideas on the internet), you may not agree
> with it, and perhaps even falsify it.
> > bigger how? you seem to be needing to describe space independent of
> > time and vice versa here. Would you?
> It would be bigger, because if space cannot be outside of the time
> framework, and time CAN exist outside of framework of space, then
> time's framework is logically bigger. But that's exactly my question:
> Is the framework of time bigger than space (and thus exists before
> space, meaning that space has not always existed)), or are they equal
> and working together to frame the existing universe?
> > based on.......your say so?
> No, there is no basis. Like I said, it's my question that I'm posing,
> plus some clarification of why I'm asking it and based on what
> arguments. Please read carefully what I've written before commenting.
Don't you mean: IOW our notions of time below the Planck scale are
flawed? And that the Wheeler-Dewitt equation in an attempt to unify
general relativity and quantum theory, includes the result of "time"
disappearing from the equation.
If you are relying so heavily on this article for your beliefs you
ought to remember that no one has used the Wheeler Dewitt equation to
unify general relativity and quantum theory and hell while your at it
mention that general relativity and quantum theory have not been
unified.
It is your matter of fact use of a theory that is not even supported
by a majority of physicists that makes your post disingenuous.
The article continues with a good layman's explanation of how time is
measured and how that is related to personal experience. So time is
what we say it is by definition. No kidding? So is every other word
on the dictionary.
The original point being dealt with here was the relationship of time
and space. I pointed to time dilation as supporting evidence of the
relationship. I also understand as I said, and Ill say again, we have
more to learn about time and I'll accept that I need to learn more
than many. But, no space = no time and no time = no space is our
current reality whether you like it or not.
Do you have anything other than a theory that is not supported by most
physicists and has not been used to show the results you offer as
proof positive?
> Everyone thinks they can conceive it, but neither views are
> conceptually possible. A beginning introduces paradoxes, and
> eternalism is inexplicable as well (in this case the "god" concept is
> just a placeholder for a big question mark, and the atheist side isn't
> much different). Atheistic eternalism is the default in that it
> doesn't propose a solution to the paradox, but the paradox stands:
> Why? How?
Well I guess that boils down nicely to: LEEBERT: no you can't MV: yes
we can ad nauseum. So I'll do like mother always said and: I'll stop
and eventually you will go away.
Some paradoxes are self induced. Currently the question of what if
anything comes before the big bang is long on theory and short on
conclusion. My guess is you will read about it in discover. Keep
your eyes peeled!
On Dec 1, 9:28 am, leebert <sregdor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 11:45 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > interesting stuff you seemed to have familiarized yourself with here.
> > perhaps beyond my pay grade but could you explain a little better what
> > you mean by:
> > >The problem is that time may not really exist,
> > I see how you worked it into context, I think. Time does exist and
> > has been aggressively studied via mathematics, physics, and other
> > stuff I know even less about. Time dilation has been measured.
> > Perhaps there is more to learn about time. From what I gather though,
> > we are as certain as we are going to be for now that time does exist.
> > Also the relationship between space and time has and continues to be
> > probed.
> IOW, our notions of time are flawed. That's not to say time dilation
> isn't a real phenomenon, the problem is that what time dilation
> represents is relative frames of experience and information, with
> physical constraints that inhere parametric flux. So "time" may be an
> abstraction - an artifact or emergent property - of something far more
> fundamental about the physical universe.
> > So how do you figure time may not exist?
> Also google for "quantum time doesn't exist"
> > Also you stated:
> > >As for a first cause, there can be no such thing, but we suspect a
> > >causeless, eternal creator could conjour material existence.
> > never mind who the we are that are suspecting this. Which causeless,
> > eternal creators were included in this study and can I get their
> > contact info?
> I wasn't endorsing the idea, I was speaking to an audience (as you may
> have noted from the conclusion I drew at the *END* of my little
> missive.....(literalist!!!!) )
> OTOH, I *am* the imperial "we."
> > and as far as:
> > >Without nothingness
> > >there's no creator (and the human mind cannot conceive of either a
> > >beginning or a no-beginning).
> > I don't lose any sleep over the environmental constraints you may
> > imagine apply to a creator due to the fact they do not exist. I
> > know lots and lots of human minds that can conceive of a beginning and
> > a no beginning. Just pointing that out.
> Everyone thinks they can conceive it, but neither views are
> conceptually possible. A beginning introduces paradoxes, and
> eternalism is inexplicable as well (in this case the "god" concept is
> just a placeholder for a big question mark, and the atheist side isn't
> much different). Atheistic eternalism is the default in that it
> doesn't propose a solution to the paradox, but the paradox stands:
> Why? How?
> Granted a dialog on this paradox typically results in citation of
> preconceived notion. That's just rearranging prejudices, not thinking
> or admission of the fundamental paradox inhered by an eternal cosmos.
> And prior to that so-called "initial condition" what phenomena
> preceded it?
Did you just naturally assume I was withholding this little gem of
information from all of humanity because I am waiting for everyone to
take their seats?
On Dec 1, 9:31 am, leebert <sregdor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 8:54 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > which is incorrect as: As used by scientists, the term Big Bang
> > generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a
> > primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the
> > past, and continues to expand to this day. .... Without any evidence
> > associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang
> > theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial
> > condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of
> > the universe since that instant.
> > (Wiki)
> And prior to that so-called "initial condition" what phenomena
> preceded it?
> > Try not making stuff up.
> Oh great. A didactic naive materialist lecturing someone else. Much
> the same as the naive theists.
On Dec 1, 2:52 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > And prior to that so-called "initial condition" what phenomena
> > preceded it?
> Did you just naturally assume I was withholding this little gem of
> information from all of humanity because I am waiting for everyone to
> take their seats?
> On Dec 1, 9:31 am, leebert <sregdor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 8:54 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > which is incorrect as: As used by scientists, the term Big Bang
> > > generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a
> > > primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the
> > > past, and continues to expand to this day. .... Without any evidence
> > > associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang
> > > theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial
> > > condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of
> > > the universe since that instant.
> > > (Wiki)
> > And prior to that so-called "initial condition" what phenomena
> > preceded it?
> > > Try not making stuff up.
> > Oh great. A didactic naive materialist lecturing someone else. Much
> > the same as the naive theists.
|
