In the beginning God or nothing?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Earlier in this thread we talked about life and time. You were born,
and all the time of your life started when you did, that does not mean
that all time was included in your life, or only that time with which you\
were involved in. The same would be true of the singularity and all
that followed it, if it were true, it would hold to the same rule.
Kelly

…You were born,
and all the time of your life started when you did, that does not mean
that all time was included in your life,
...

Of course -there is reason and evidence to believe that there was a “before” by birth.
My birth and the singularity are fundamentally completely different things and so that analogy just doesn’t work.

…The same would be true of the singularity
….

How would that logically follow? -answer, it wouldn’t.

My birth and the singularity are fundamentally completely different things and, although I don’t personally totally rule out the possibility that there was a “before” that singularity, as far as I am aware, the current evidence is against that.
There is no logical inconsistency in there being no “before” that singularity and you have yet to explain any such logical inconsistency.

…The same WOULD BE TRUE of the singularity and all
that followed it, IF IT WERE TRUE, it would hold to the SAME RULE.
…..(my emphasis)

If “The same WOULD BE TRUE of the singularity”
Then it would just be a tautology that “IF IT WERE TRUE, it would hold to the SAME RULE”.
But did you concluded that “The same WOULD BE TRUE of the singularity” from “IF IT WERE TRUE, it would hold to the SAME RULE”?
-if so, how did you go from “IF IT WERE TRUE” to “ITS TRUE”! ?
-I am just trying to find out how you arrived at those conclusions.

Originally posted by black beetle
Every event takes place within spacetime dimension, we simply cannot go back to t=0; in case there is "something" "before" the big bang it would be a part of our known kosmos, thus it would exist within spacetime;

You again assume t=0 is a reality, I keep asking how do you know?
I can grant you may believe those things which make up our reality
has a beginning, I believe they do, but that does not mean time itself
had one. So far all people suggest is true that the process of all matter
seems to point to a point in time, with various views on when.
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
Furthermore, could you suppose that "the universe is set somewhere"? Just the way there is no spacetime outside of the universe, there was no spacetime outside of the point simgularity, and that's all for the time being for tomorrow we may know more -but this conversation is already well exhausted by Mr Hamilton and twhitehead amongst else. (Earlier, I ...[text shortened]... perspective simply in order to cross-check and confirm a specific approach of thinking).
😵

I'm saying a paradox if unavoidable with the train of thought that is
being presented, when it comes to the beginning. The people here
who which to avoid the subject all start in mid-process there is this
singularity see and it has no beginning. Which basically isn't part of
the debate if all that was brought up is everything in another form,
it again avoids the beginning, and where the beginnig would be it is
suggested nothing there exists from time to whatever.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You again assume t=0 is a reality, I keep asking how do you know?
I can grant you may believe those things which make up our reality
has a beginning, I believe they do, but that does not mean time itself
had one. So far all people suggest is true that the process of all matter
seems to point to a point in time, with various views on when.
Kelly

I clearly said that we cannot go back to t=0, therefore we can go back only to the point singularity. You cannot have the dimension of time independed from the dimension of space😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm saying a paradox if unavoidable with the train of thought that is
being presented, when it comes to the beginning. The people here
who which to avoid the subject all start in mid-process there is this
singularity see and it has no beginning. Which basically isn't part of
the debate if all that was brought up is everything in another form,
it again ...[text shortened]... here the beginnig would be it is
suggested nothing there exists from time to whatever.
Kelly

The "beginning" we are aware of is the point singularity on t=00000000000000000000000000000000000,1; there is no paradox, there is just a limited knowledge of ours due to fact that for the time being we are not able to trace an earlier status of SpaceTime😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm saying a paradox if unavoidable with the train of thought that is
being presented, when it comes to the beginning. The people here
who which to avoid the subject all start in mid-process there is this
singularity see and it has no beginning. Which basically isn't part of
the debate if all that was brought up is everything in another form,
it again ...[text shortened]... here the beginnig would be it is
suggested nothing there exists from time to whatever.
Kelly

…I'm saying a paradox if unavoidable with the train of thought that is
being presented,
...

So what is this “paradox”?
If such a “paradox” exists then why don’t you just tell us what it is? -answer, there is no paradox here.

…The people here
who which to AVIOD the subject ALL START in MID-process there is this
singularity see and it has NO beginning.
….(my emphasis)

1, as black beetle pointed out, the “beginning” is simply defined as t = 0.
So how can that singularity have “no beginning”?

2, the start of the singularity is the “beginning” so how can that “beginning” be the “MID-process”? -the “middle” of what process? If there was no “before” that point in time then how could that point in time be the “middle” of any process!?

3, “AVIOD” which subject?

Originally posted by black beetle
I clearly said that we cannot go back to t=0, therefore we can go back only to the point singularity. You cannot have the dimension of time independed from the dimension of space😵

I clearly said "t=0" isn't something you can tell me was ever real,
and your point hangs on that! You have not at all shown that there was
ever any point, time or no, that didn't have space outside of the
singularity, its been acknowleged space was a place where the
singularity was sitting in and the parts that made up the singularity
had space between them, what else wasn't a part of the singularity?

You want to make the claim that eveything was a part of it, and I've
been asking you prove it! You have a belief about this, nothing more
it is a matter of faith, it isn't science when we look at that thing and the
setting it was in.
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
The "beginning" we are aware of is the point singularity on t=00000000000000000000000000000000000,1; there is no paradox, there is just a limited knowledge of ours due to fact that for the time being we are not able to trace an earlier status of SpaceTime😵

Was the singularity sitting in itself or some space?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I'm saying a paradox if unavoidable with the train of thought that is
being presented,
...

So what is this “paradox”?
If such a “paradox” exists then why don’t you just tell us what it is? -answer, there is no paradox here.

…The people here
who which to AVIOD the subject ALL START in MID-process there is this
singularity see ...[text shortened]... then how could that point in time be the “middle” of any process!?

3, “AVIOD” which subject?

[/b]You have either no beginning or you have the eternal singularity and
if that is the case I agree you have no beginning and it is than not
part of this discussion any more than the eternal God's beginning has.

The universe either had one or it didn't.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I clearly said "t=0" isn't something you can tell me was ever real,
and your point hangs on that! You have not at all shown that there was
ever any point, time or no, that didn't have space outside of the
singularity, its been acknowleged space was a place where the
singularity was sitting in and the parts that made up the singularity
had space between of faith, it isn't science when we look at that thing and the
setting it was in.
Kelly

…you have acknowledged space as a place where the
singularity was sitting in and the part of that made up the singularity
had space between them, what else wasn't a part of the singularity?
…..

Apart from space there is time.
So all there was then was the singularity, space and time.
What possible relevance could it have whether it is correct or incorrect to say “space and time is part of the singularity?” -this is just totally irrelevant semantics.
-lets suppose, just for the sake of argument, that it IS correct to say space is not “part” of the singularity -then the answer to your question would be that there is just one more thing that isn’t part of the singularity and that is time -so what? What possible relevance has this got to do with anything? -answer, none.



…You want to make the claim that everything was a part of it, and I've
been asking you prove it!
...

If it is correct to say “space-time is part of the singularity” then there are sound scientific reasons to believe that once that was all there was by applying relativity (which has been proven correct) to astronomical facts and observations to making logical extrapolations into the past.

…You have a belief about this, nothing more
it is a matter of faith,

...

Nope, it is a matter of science -no faith required.

…it isn't science when we look at that thing and the
setting it was in.
...

In what way is that not science? Answer, it IS science because it comes from applying relativity (which has been proven correct) to astronomical facts and observations to making logical extrapolations into the past.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have either no beginning or you have the eternal singularity and
if that is the case I agree you have no beginning and it is than not
part of this discussion any more than the eternal God's beginning has.

The universe either had one or it didn't.
Kelly[/b]

…You have either no beginning or you have the eternal singularity
…..

Who said the singularity could be eternal? -not me!

…and
if that is the case I agree you have no beginning
...

But I didn’t say that the singularity was eternal nor do I make that peculiar assumption.

…The universe either had one or it didn't.
...

The current evidence points to it probably having a beginning but there being no "before" -is this the subject you say we are “avoiding”? -if so, that is simply not the case. In what way have we not been talking about the beginning?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You again assume t=0 is a reality, I keep asking how do you know?
I can grant you may believe those things which make up our reality
has a beginning, I believe they do, but that does not mean time itself
had one. So far all people suggest is true that the process of all matter
seems to point to a point in time, with various views on when.
Kelly

What you mean "...how do I know"?
A dimension, spacetime included, is a means of a specific measure. By tracing backwards photons we are establishing a status very close to t=0, so we are at the beginning of the point singularity. And since there is no measured "before", we stop there. If we have to suppose that there was something "outside" and "beyond", we have to accept that there were dimensions external to our known universe -but since there is not such an indication we just stick to the point singularity.

Or are you aware of any dimensions external to our kosmos?
😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll ask this question, how do you know "everything" was in it? I mean
it was set somewhere; this somewhere was what, just the singularity
itself? If it expands, it expands while remaining the same size for it
cannot occupy space that does not exist that isn't already apart of the
singularity, if there were such a space to expand into that than shows
that not everything was a part of the singularity.
Kelly

The universe is currently expanding. However it is not expanding outward into new areas of 'space', but rather the space itself that makes up the universe is expanding.

Now can you answer you own questions as they are universal questions and apply to your own beliefs just as much as they apply to scientific theories:
1. Does the universe sit in a 'greater space'? ie is there something outside it spatially?
2. Is time independent of space? Note that this would have far reaching implications with respect to relativity.
3. Is time infinite?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…You have either no beginning or you have the eternal singularity
…..

Who said the singularity could be eternal? -not me!

…and
if that is the case I agree you have no beginning
...

But I didn’t say that the singularity was eternal nor do I make that peculiar assumption.

…The universe either had one or it didn't.
.. if so, that is simply not the case. In what way have we not been talking about the beginning?

[/b]I'm fine with you saying it isn't eternal, which means it started at
some point for some reason. If you have a starting point, you have
a point before the start, you may not want to acknowledge it, but if
there was a starting point there was a point where it wasn't started,
it isn't that hard to wrap your brain around. The starting point was
caused by...what something other than the singuarlity itself, or some
other force or factor?
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
What you mean "...how do I know"?
A dimension, spacetime included, is a means of a specific measure. By tracing backwards photons we are establishing a status very close to t=0, so we are at the beginning of the point singularity. And since there is no measured "before", we stop there. If we have to suppose that there was something "outside" and "beyon ...[text shortened]... the point singularity.

Or are you aware of any dimensions external to our kosmos?
😵

Specific measures tracing backwards photons is looking at what you
think is an event's beginning, that event does not have to be the
total period of all time equal to "t=0" once you hit the end of that
road. It could just be the total time needed for that event which is
being studied, and even than that does not mean that what we are
looking at actually started at that point either now does it?
Kelly