- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJay'Where' the singularity was [if it existed] is easy to answer.
I know the Big Bang does not answer the question where everything comes from, if you
agree that the singularity is what at the heart of the Big Bang, than the question remains
unanswered, because where did the singularity come from let alone where was it.
It was everywhere.
It wasn't an event that happened 'in space', all of space and time were contained inside it.
Everything and everywhere, from where you are now to the most distant galaxies and beyond were all inside
this one point.
22 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd what exactly does “inside” mean—at that point? What would "outside" mean?
'Where' the singularity was [if it existed] is easy to answer.
It was everywhere.
It wasn't an event that happened 'in space', all of space and time were contained inside it.
Everything and everywhere, from where you are now to the most distant galaxies and beyond were all inside
this one point.
Not a criticism of what you said—at all—just, I think, an illustration of the problems of language in addressing certain concepts, even when the concept being pointed to is perfectly coherent.
Before there was a before
at a point that was nowhere
where everything was . . .
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, that is not known to be the case either in the time dimension or the spacial dimensions. We know the universe is currently expanding and have strong evidence that it expanded from a very dense stated. This suggests time may be finite in the past. However we know nothing about whether it is finite in the future, nor do we know anything about whether or not space is finite. There is no evidence either way.
I'm not sure what an endless sea of time and energy is, but according to our current understanding of the Universe it is not infinite.
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadIndeed. I would not be bothered by the question of numbers less than zero—but as soon as you put that “m” there . . . ?
Interestingly people have a lot less confusion about other dimensions that are finite in one direction. Nobody ever seems to get bothered by the question, what is shorter than 0m?
Originally posted by KellyJayThe 'evidence' you cite is circumstantial at best. That animals exist is not in doubt; that God created them is another matter entirely,
If someone wants to say we have no evidence for the God and the opening line of
scripture that says God created everything and those things we see around us are laid
out are actually doing what God said, the heavens and earth are here, the stars are
seen, the animals are not mating across kinds but giving birth after their own kinds. If that
is all true ...[text shortened]... for over
thousands of years, I'd say they are looking evidence in the face simply ignoring it.
So what does the creation myth offer: creation ex nihilo.
What is creation ex nihilo but everything from nothing--exactly what you say is incomprehensible, inexplicable, impossible. A great big mystery. And now, on top of that great big mystery, you want to add yet another, even greater mystery: a Magic Fairy. Sorry, but ‘explaining’ one mystery by appealing to an even greater mystery is not convincing. Really, really, really not convincing.
If God exists self-sufficiently, no further explanation required, then I can just as well say that the universe just exists, self-sufficiently, no further explanation required. The non-theistic ‘explanation’ has the great virtue that it does not require belief in magic, and no one doubts the existence of physical laws.
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by AgergI did not mention the universe.
As noted By C Hess, Science [b]didn't create the universe, and nobody with any credible academic background would make any claim to the contrary.
And as for why we haven't been creating little ants, as you keep asking ... set up a system where for the right conditions, the non-convergence of that systems' state to one that contains ants is improbable, a ...[text shortened]... y a billion years or so, with an unfathomable number of trials every day), you'll get your ants.[/b]
Atheistic science tells us everything is an accident. (how absurd and dishonest)
So if an accident is responsible for consciousness and the reproduction system in every life form..................then thousands of scientists with millions of dollars MUST be able to create a little ant.
But they cannot....................because big bang and evolution are falsities invented by delusional dishonest fraudsters.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by vistesdIndeed.
And what exactly does “inside” mean—at that point? What would "outside" mean?
Not a criticism of what you said—at all—just, I think, an illustration of the problems of language in addressing certain concepts, even when the concept being pointed to is perfectly coherent.
Before there was a before
at a point that was nowhere
where everything was . . .
This is why the language of science is not, in fact, English... But is instead, maths.
22 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeReal physics and physicists think it is theoretically possible, than well than!
Real physics and physicists say that it is theoretically possible that everything did
indeed come from absolute and total nothing.
Whether that is what actually happened... nobody knows.
You are a very sharp person, do you think it is ever remotely possible, or do you just
take a back seat to "real" physics and physicists? What do you think, can you produce
everything from nothing, while doing nothing to nothing? Personally I think everyone knows!
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeUnderstood. But are there not also limitations to the maths? Goedel’s incompleteness, for example? (Those are not intended as argumentative questions—my own maths ended at differential calculus, and I forget all of that.)
Indeed.
This is why the language of science is not, in fact, English... But is instead, maths.
My own suggestion is that there are likely limits to the “grammar” of human consciousness that may not exhaust the “syntax” of the universe. That is, whatever language one uses, there is an epistemological “singularity” beyond which we simply cannot get. Because, to get there, we would have to obtain a “view from nowhere”—i.e., a universal perspective.